Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 September 24

= September 24 =

excise tax
An excise tax creates inefficiency in that the number of transactions in a market is reduced. Because the tax discourages mutually beneficial transactions, there is _____ from a tax. 70.114.23.60 00:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the term you're looking for to fill that gap is excess burden, and after that you might like to say 'from the tax'. Xn4  01:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect that this is a h _ _ _ work question. StuRat 18:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Mexico's view on Palestine
What was Mexico's view on Palestine right after WWI? Did they agree with the British Mandate passed by the League of Nations? And does anyone know if Mexico wanted Palestine to become an international zone or a Jewish State?

-Cindy


 * Cindy, I cannot say for certain what Mexico's view was on the British Mandate over Palestine, established in 1923, though I suspect that it did not figure high among the country's international preoccupations. After the Second World War Mexico was one of a small group of countries that abstained in the vote on United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, calling for the partition of Palestine.  Clio the Muse 03:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is indeed a difficult and curious question; Mexico was probably a bit more preoccupied by the aftermath of their own revolution. By the way, Baja California had been one of the sites the Zionists had considered for a national home; I don't think the local opposition was considered too strong.  The mandate had to be and was approved unanimously by the Council of the League of Nations in 1922, but Mexico was not on the Council or in the League at the time. Chaim Weizmann in his autobiography relates that the two nations whose votes the Zionists were concerned about were Brazil and Spain, because of their insignificant Jewish populations (also true of Mexico), while some last minute opposition came from the Papal Nuncios. Spain decided to help the Zionists and helped persuade Brazil.   These facts of meagre relevance make me speculate that  if Mexico had had anything to say about it, it is a little more likely that it would have voted yes rather than no - they would probably have done the opposite of anything any nuncio wanted.John Z 04:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I think, John, that may come close to being a certainty! Clio the Muse 04:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The only time that Mexico's middle-east policy became an important issue (as far as I'm aware) was during the ca. 1975-1976 tourism boycott triggered by Mexico coming out in support of the infamous and notorious Resolution 3379. AnonMoos 11:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth I
I am having trouble finding information about Elizabeth I's education. I just need to know the basics really. Thanks!75.54.129.38 01:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * She was, as were all royal children at this time, privately tutored. Her most important governess was Katherine Champernowne, who taught Elizabeth astronomy, geography, history, mathematics, French, Flemish, Italian and Spanish. as well as needlework, dancing, riding and deportment.  Quite a curriculum; quite a teacher; quite a pupil!  Clio the Muse 02:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Switch from Information Technology to History.
Hello, I am currently working in IT as a programmer. My mind wanders in the logic of the codes, but my heart yearns for the mysteries of history ! (A poor try at a poem). But that is exactly the dilemma i am facing. Am thinking of a career change from IT to History. But want to know like what kind of work do you guys do? What's involved in being a historian etc. Could anyone please help.

Thanks & Regards, Nikhil. Illogical Programmer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.136.234 (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In some ways this is quite a difficult question to answer, as 'doing history' is, for me, a little like 'doing breathing'; it is part of me; it is part of what I am. I have become, or am in the process of becoming, a professional historian, teacher and writer, though most of the people who studied alongside me as undergraduates at Cambridge have gone on to other things; anything from banking, journalism, government to management.  Anyway, Nikhil, what's involved in being a historian is reading, researching and investigation.  It involves tracing sources and examining documents; behaving, in many respects, as if you are a detective in search of clues.  It involves taking nothing for granted, but building up a picture, using forms of cross-referencing and authentication.  Above all, it entails a love for the past and a desire to present it to the present with all of the intellectual honesty and moral integrity of which one is capable.  It's a good choice.  Go for it!  Clio the Muse 04:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * All my fellow undergraduate historians went to teacher's college, aside from the few of us who went to grad school :) If you want to be a professional historian, then it involves just what Clio said, but also teaching, researching and writing articles and books (of varying quality, if you need to fill a quota), moving around from school to school until someone gives you a tenured position, attending conferences and arguing with fellow historians over obscure topics, while being misunderstood or simply ignored by the vast majority of people who neither know nor care what you are talking about, because you haven't turned it into a overly-dramatized movie for them. But if you love it, you love it, and all this certainly doesn't discourage me, or Clio, or the other student-historians here! Adam Bishop 05:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Those insights were really very helpful. Thank you very much Clio & Adam for your acts. And hopefully you would be joined by another historian shortly.....


 * What period/society/other niche are you particularly interested in studying? One of the first lessons you learn as an Historian is to reply "not my period" when people talk to you about History. The sneer is optional, but always a popular option. It's essential for you to believe that what you are studying is not only the most important "bit" of History (ever) but that actually, it's more important than any other field of study. Proving or disproving that the Sicilian Normans laid the first plank of a certain ship in 1211 or 1212 is actually a life or death matter. Dandruff and appalling dress sense and dreadful thick rimmed glasses are also useful accessories to consider. Actually, many of the stereotypes or out of date (how appropriate) or were never true. Language skills will be very useful (which languages and to what extent depends on your eventual speciality, but even if you wish to focus on, say, the modern history of an English speaking country, for which most primary sources may be in English, you may still wish to read what Russian historians say about the same subject) Most of all, an open mind and an ability to honestly appraise what you uncover, even if it uncomfortably negates your opinion will hold you in good stead. --Dweller 11:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC) I escaped, but I kinda wish I hadn't


 * My suggestion (as a PhD student in a field of history that gets a lot of non-historians applying) is to figure out what specific sub-field is most attractive to you at this point (you can change it later once you get your foot in the door) and then getting in touch with someone from that field who is willing to forward you a few suggestions from their "canon", just so you will have some idea what the salient issues are and what the general mindset is. It is often quite different than any popular perception of it, or what is reflected in more popular works on the subject. This is assuming you are interested in an academic pursuit of it, of course. Much of academic history is predicated on first understanding what has already been written, and then figuring out how you will add to it or do something different — you don't do the latter without showing some mastery of the former. Once you have a little experience with it and can say what you like or don't like with some greater specificity, then you are a bit more ready to try and convince someone (a university program, for example), that you would be a good investment for them to take on. --24.147.86.187 15:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Cambridge Five
I've been reading your stuff on the Cambridge Five and the individual biographies of the people in question. I think I understand 'how', as Orwell might have said, but not 'why'. There were many Communists who did not become outright traitors. Was there some other factor at work? 217.42.110.172 11:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please clarify - are you asking what tipped them over the edge into treachery, rather than just sympathising? --Dweller 11:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you are, it would be hard to answer the question, because each of the four known members of the Five would have had a complex web of motivations, as with most life-changing decisions. Clearly, the passion for communism would have been a motivator, as you indicate. --Dweller 11:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Warning, I'm about to get into stating an opinion which is based on no sources. One factor must be that the four confirmed members of the Cambridge Five were all from privileged backgrounds - Philby from Westminster School and Trinity College, Cambridge, Maclean from Gresham's and Trinity Hall, Cambridge (and the son of a former Leader of the Liberal Party), Burgess from Eton and (again) Trinity, and Blunt from Marlborough and (yet again) Trinity. They weren't treacherous rogues, they were idealists whose main motivation, in the beginning, was determined opposition to fascism and Nazi Germany, rather than a pure love of Communism, and they saw their own class appeasing the fascists, while the forces of the Left stood up to them. Having cast their lot in with the Soviets, they clearly saw them through rose-tinted spectacles. None of them had the disillusioning experiences of (say) George Orwell, who saw the sharp end of Stalinism for himself. One characteristic (sometimes a noble and endearing one, but sometimes maddening) of the English ruling class is that its members stick to their guns and go the whole hog, they get an idea into their heads and nothing will shift it. Rather like the English Roman Catholic martyrs of the 16th century, the Cambridge Five believed they had a higher loyalty than to their own country. Xn4  00:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is, perhaps, another dimension to this, Xn4. Struggling to find the right words, I would define it as the exclusive within the exclusive, clumsy, I know, but it may go some way to offering a slightly fuller explanation.  You see, as far as I can determine, it was not all down to politics: it was down to being different; to feeling different from one's class and one's community, and taking pride in this difference.  The individuals in question were the ideal candidates for the Soviet intelligence service; in the British establishment but not of the British establishment.  There the were, marked by birth and background; marked by membership of the Cambridge Apostles, marked by forms of sexuality that emphasised a further dimension of alienation from many of their peers.  They were 'outside insiders', flattered by the attentions of the Soviets; pleased to be serving a wider cause; pleased, in the end, to be serving themsleves, their egos and their particular, narrowly-defined ends.  Empty vessels waiting to be filled, they were the Swallows; all the others were the Amazons. It was a game: once begun, it could not be stopped. Clio the Muse 02:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I like your Swallows and Amazons. So as well as being about politics it was all a game? I can buy that, and it takes us back to Cyril Connolly's Theory of Permanent Adolescence - "... the greater part of the ruling class remains adolescent, school-minded, self-conscious, cowardly, sentimental, and in the last analysis homosexual." As I said once before, the painful word in that is 'cowardly'. I'd be surprised if any of the Cambridge Five failed to read Enemies of Promise when it came out in 1938. I wonder, did the word 'cowardly' get to them?  Xn4  05:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Or as Isaiah Berlin put it: "the trouble with Anthony (Blunt) is that he wanted both to run with the hare and ride with the hounds". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natalie West (talk • contribs) 10:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Business Environment
I require answers to this question A term paper on joint stock company as a business formation unit and the consequences for the stakeholders —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adjoy1 (talk • contribs) 12:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So what is the question exactly? How to go about writing such a paper? You do some research on the topic of joint stock companies as a business formation unit and the consequences for the stakeholders, and you write down what you find in a coherent and cogent fashion as a paper. --Lambiam 15:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_stock_company is a good starting point for background before proceeding to search engines and libraries.  Note the large differences between different countries and states.  It is not obvious in the article but, at least in the U.S., you will want to pay particular attention to the type of stock issued (preferred, common, etc.) and any particular conditions allowed by regulatory authorities in the approved issues.  Lazyquasar 05:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

label for Eber
In the Old Testament Eber is said to have persevered the language by refusing to take part in construction of the Tower of Babel. Is there a name or phrase to describe such an "outrider" for lack of a better term, who refuses to take part in some activity and is then able to restore whatever might be lost as the result of the activity?  Clem  13:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No such claim is made in the Old Testamant; rather, it appears to have its origins in the Talmud.  That said, I'm at a loss regarding the actual vocabulary question you've posed. &mdash; Lomn 13:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The facts are presented in the Old Testament (not Testamant) which support the "claim," right, even if such a claim is elaborated upon somewhere else? In military jargon I think the position or label of a person that is not part of the main body or column but off to the side is called the "flank" and on a Pacific Island canoe the thing that is extended out and floats to prevent the canoe from over turning is called an outrigger. In fact the whole rig is then called an outrigger canoe. In football I think they call or the label for the same position is an "end." So a "flanker" or an "end" comes close but not close enough.  Clem   14:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * While it doesn't exactly capture what you're looking for, the phrase "a voice in the wilderness" is close. --Sean 13:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought "voice in (or from?) the wilderness" meant something else, depending upon the exact phrase I always thought it suggested a voice that no one could hear (in) or a cry for help (from) or a voice that no one listened to (from).  Clem   14:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Vox clamantis in deserto... —Keenan Pepper 18:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Eber gets very little mention in the Old Testament (and don't be testy and pick people up on their spelling). Gen 10, 21-25 is the source. I'll give you King James translation:

21 Unto Shem also, the father of all the children of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder, even to him were children born. Eber 22 The children of Shem; Elam, and Asshur, and Arphaxad, and Lud, and Aram. 23 And the children of Aram; Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash. 24 And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber. 25 And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother's name was Joktan.


 * And, that's it. I think the major sources for Eber as father of Hebrew are (Babylonian) Talmud Brachot, the Kuzari and Midrash, but I don't have any references to hand. --Dweller 15:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So then how would you label Eber in the context of what he did - not participating in the construction of the Tower of Babel but rather refusing to participate?  Clem   15:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't know if there is a single term in English that covers the welter of meanings you would like it to. You could try the Language desk? There are specialists there. You might also find there's a word in a foreign language, if there's none in English. --Dweller 15:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps "nonconformist", in terms of the one guy not following the crowd. That said, I still think the historical example is lousy -- at least in terms of citing the OT.  In regard to your comment above, I don't see any "facts presented supporting the claim" any more than I see the claim itself.  Given that, it's hard to nail down precise shades of meaning since the precise context of the example is in doubt. &mdash; Lomn 15:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The context is simply the reason Eber refused to cooperate or go along wiht the program or join everyone else. Perhaps "rebel" is the right term. As for lousy historical reference, I have a maid who is always right and never cleans a room that in her opinion contains nothing out of place. I've learned now that if I want a room cleaned it is best to enter first and assure that in her opinion something is out of place.  Clem   21:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In this sense, probably the closest concept is that of the digital backup; in effect, by copying the data (teaching the language to Eber), and then keeping the data safe (away from God's wrath), Eber's brain stored a backup of the original language even after the file became corrupted. So perhaps the best term would be "human backup" or just "backup"? Laïka  16:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Another relevant military term would be "stay-behind".--Pharos 20:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How about the term "rebel" would that adequately describe what Eber was?  Clem   21:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Curious understanding of "rebel". He rebelled against those who rebelling against God. I'd call him "righteous" or if you want a negative POV "goody goody". --Dweller 08:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What is the purpose of this question? Is it for the Eber article?  Some other reason?  You won't get a good answer unless you explain what you want to put this to.--Pharos 22:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What would you call a person or a group of people who have set out to do what Eber did in ancient time? By that I mean for instance (and this is only an example) a person sees corruption in business and in government sufficient to merit, if not justify a nuclear attack. So they give up on trying to end the corruption and instead seek habitat in the wilderness which might survive a nuclear attack. In the '80's similar people were labeled as "survivalists" but that label does not apply to Eber because his motive was based on service to God. What is lacking in the Eber article is what everyone's motive was for doing what they were doing which finding the right label might clarify and resolve.  Clem   09:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In biologic terms, Eber could be a reservoir. (Seems to me there could be a better title for that article.)  &mdash;Tamfang 23:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

After some thought I have decided on Preservationist, in this case meaning obedience to God rather than a building or structure.  Clem   —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 11:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Animals native to France?
We are looking at the country of France and want to know what animals are native to France. We have searched "Native Animals of France" and read the whole France article. Can you please help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbeyKatieMom (talk • contribs) 13:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It's strange, we have tons of articles in the subcategories of Category:Fauna by country, but no categories specific to France. Recury 13:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * In the search form on this page of the Fauna Europea database, you can select List species within Class, fill in for Class any of Actinopterygii (fish), Amphibia (amphibians), Aves (birds), Mammalia (mammals), and Reptilia (reptiles), select Country/region French mainland, press Display Species, and get a list of all native French species in the class. These are long lists, and you get the scientific names, which you then can look up on Wikipedia. --Lambiam 15:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Totalitarianism
Hannah Arendt described Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany as forms of totalitarianism. Does this mean that there was no difference between the two? Bryson Bill 16:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No. The political spectrum has more than one dimension - see political compass, Nolan chart and Pournelle chart. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandalf61 (talk • contribs) 16:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * they were both totalitarian. Just on opposite edges of the political spectrum. But better you wait for someone really competent like Clio.--Tresckow 17:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The political spectrum can be viewed as a circle, in which case (self-claiming) communist nations are right next to right-wing dictatorships. The difference is mainly one of ideology, not in practical terms.  The communist governments can claim to value equality and other virtues, but, as George Orwell said in Animal Farm, "some are more equal than others".  That book shows how the two really are the same in the end.  Once the dictatorship of the evil farmer is replaced by communism, the ruling class (the pigs) soon establish their own dictatorship. StuRat 18:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So the real middle of the road is anarchism? (I've often said that libertarians are the true moderates, seeking to expand the grey area between the mandatory and the forbidden where others would narrow it.)  &mdash;Tamfang 23:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Diamond and graphite are forms of carbon. Does this mean there is no difference between the two?  &mdash;Tamfang 23:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In some ways, yes, it does mean there is no difference. In some ways there are differences. It depends how you are looking at them and why. Honestly, I'm not sure an analogy like that is very useful or clarifying. --24.147.86.187 00:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (Any given "political spectrum" is just one of many ways to think about the range of political opinions. Don't take any single political spectrum uncritically. Most of the "political compasses" which are popular on college campuses were designed by Libertarians in order to justify their ideology and condemn other ideologies.) For Arendt, the point was to emphasize their similarities in an era where Communism still had lots of appeal to many while Nazism was basically dead. Arendt certainly wanted to make the point that the differences between the two were superficial, as she basically regarded them as being the same form of governance, albeit perhaps justified differently. --24.147.86.187 00:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've seen at least three "political compasses" that were generated by seeking correlations in the opinions of real people: one based on votes in the US Congress over about a century (an animation of the data may still exist somewhere at http://www.voteview.com/), one based on votes in the last two Westminster Parliaments, and one based on a quiz taken by random people. —Tamfang 04:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Arendt could certainly draw on some strong authorities for her model of totalitarianism; for none other than Leon Trotsky had said that there was little to separate Stalin and Hitler one from the other, judging by the political techniques that they favoured. And he should know, should he not? There were similarities, of course there were similarities: both presided over one-party states; both favoured terror and both made fulsome use of propaganda and forms of mass mobliisation. But the analysis of Arendt-and of Trotsky-only serves to confuse more than it enlightens. In terms of both theory and of practice there were real and abiding differences between Hitlerism and Stalinism; between, what might be described as irrational and rational forms of dictatorship.

So, how is this essential difference to be defined? I can put it no better than this: when Martin Bormann's son asked what National Socialism was, he was told quite simply that it was "The will of the Führer." In other words, National Socialism, as a form of political practice, and as a style of government, is inconceivable without Hitler. The system of admistration Hitler favoured was devoid of all structure and method; of all lines of bureacratic authority. At root, it was little better than a form of Social Darwinism, without any discernable rational order. At one point, for example, no less than three separate agencies had an input into foreign policy, all with contradictory aims, and all with equal access to the Führer. As Ian Kershaw has expressed it, "Hitler's leadership was uttery incompatible with a rational decision-making process, or with a coherent, unified administration and the attainment of limited goals...its self-destructive capacity unmistakeable, its eventual demise certain."

If Hitler was Nazism, Stalin was most definitely not Communism. In other words, he did not create the system, nor did he shape it to match the ends of his own ambition. He worked within the existing structures of Soviet power, its ideology and its administrative procedures. This defined both the nature, and, let me stress this, the limitations of his power. There were some things, in other words, that even the great Stalin could not do: he always had to operate within, and pay homage to, a system established by Lenin, a system that went well beyond his authority and presence. Stalin did not destroy or pervert Leninism: he was its most perfect expression, the superlative bureaucrat, and the greatest of political managers. He worked, above all, to a rational and to a given set of ends, because that was what was expected. There was a degree of stability and predictability to the Soviet dictatorship which simply did not exist in Nazi Germany. It was the nature, the transcendent nature, if you like, of the Communist ideal that enabled Stalin's successor to condemn his 'mismanagement'. No Nazi version of Khrushchev would ever come to accuse Hitler in such terms. The very idea of such a thing is inconceivable. Clio the Muse 01:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The term "Social Darwinism" is used in a lot of strange ways, but this is perhaps the strangest I've seen. There's disagreement on its content but it's usually considered to be an ideology, not a mere incoherence.  —Tamfang 04:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you really know or understand the sense in which the term is being used here? No attempt is being made to define Social Darwinism as an ideology but as a political practice, a practice based on notions of the survival of the fittest, one that was applied to the bureaucratic free-for-all that was such a defining characteristic of Nazi administration.  Why don't you try re-reading what I have written just a little more slowly-it may aid your comprehension.  Clio the Muse 22:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (I bend over backward sometimes to extract sense from incoherent writing, and this is typical of the thanks I get.) You might try using the right word.  I guess you meant to speak of a Darwinian struggle within the bureaucracy.  If you mean that Hitler deliberately set his underlings at each other's throats out of a misguided notion that those fittest for the struggle would also be fittest to serve his purposes ("fitness" always has a context!), then yes, that's a kind of distorted Darwinism – but then the practice was organized by a theory, and therefore not "without any discernable rational order".  The sin of at least some of those described as Social Darwinists was not an excess of laisser-faire but, on the contrary, the hubris that they could do better than blind Nature in recognizing the "unfit".  —Tamfang 03:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * HA! HA! HA! Beautiful; I could not have wished a better response!  Thanks awfully for confirming what I already suspected.  Clio the Muse 07:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hm. Either that's a sincere compliment, meaning that I got it right, or you really don't want to give a straight answer for some reason (and I can't think of a good reason). I'll choose to take it as a compliment. —Tamfang 09:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

José Antonio Primo de Rivera
Isnt it an oversimplification to call him a fascist?--Tresckow 17:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Describing him with just that adjective indeed is, but it's without any doubt that his political outlook had clearly defined ties with fascism. Check the Spanish version of the article of his party, [], for further details. --Taraborn 18:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I did. If I can trust this information they were national syndicalist and left fascism to these guys Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right.--Tresckow 20:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Tresckow, it is an oversimplification to call Jose Antonio a Fascist; but there again it is probably an oversimplification to call anyone a Fascist who was not a member of the Italian National Fascist Party or the British Union of Fascists. The Nazis, for example, almost never referred to themselves as such, and Jose Antonio specifically rejected the label in 1934 as an appropriate descriptive term for his Falange.


 * The problem is, you see, that the very term Fascism has really no intrinsic meaning, and the various radical and right-wing parties to whom it has been applied have differed from one another in almost every fundamental. There was certainly the common emphasis on the nation; but this kind of ideology was not restricted to parties of the radical right.  One might conceivably detect some overlap between the early Fasci italiani di combattimento and the Falange, with the stress on direct action and on forms of National syndicalism; but early Fascism was anti-clerical, whereas the Falange took a stand on Catholicism and other traditional Spanish values.  Mussolini's movement developed in a more reactionary direction by allying itself with the big landlords in northern Italy, whereas Jose Antonio's Falange was just as critical of landlordism as it was of Communism.  His political programme, moreover, looked in essence to the recreation of the state headed by Miguel Primo de Rivera, his father, which could not be described in any meaningful sense as Fascist.  Jose Antonio was radical; he was conservative; he was Catholic; he was nationalist.  Above all, he was Spanish.  Clio the Muse 23:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks a lot.--Tresckow 08:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm... be careful, Tresckow. The CEDA (Spanish Confederation of the Autonomous Right) was categorized as being "very" right-winger, but still republican and democratic (think of it as just being the conservative party in a bipartidist system but somewhat more extremist); whereas Falange hated parliamentarianism. Also keep in mind that the CEDA was dissolved after the outbreak of the Spanish civil war, something that, probably, has some significance while considering the position of the party in the political spectrum. Maybe you should have a look at José Calvo Sotelo's Acción Española, another authoritarian nationalist party, which is, perhaps, closer to traditional fascism. --Taraborn 19:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * thanks!--Tresckow 20:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

corporal punishment related to students with disabilities
I am looking for information and statistics on the use of corporal punishment upon students with disabilities. I could use national references, but I am specifically interested it as it is applied to Mississippi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.205.181.205 (talk) 18:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Our article on Corporal punishment doesn't get that specific, but I found a few related websites by searching Google using the relevant keywords. 152.16.16.75 10:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

William of Rubruck
Your piece says nothing at all about his missionary activity among the Mongols or his general impressions of the people. I would be pleased if one of you could summarise this for me. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.84.114 (talk) 19:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly! William's mission was conceived as part of an attempt to win over the Mongols by 'persuasion', so to speak  It was a dangerous journey, and when the little party finally arrived at the court of Mongke, the Great Kahn, poor William was to write that he felt as if her were entering the Gates of Hell!  His descriptions of the people he encoutered are not very flattering, especially the women: "The less nose she has, the more beautiful she is considered...In the case of one chieftain's wife I was under the impression that she had amputated the bridge of her nose so as to look more snub-nosed...which to us looked thoroughly dreadful."


 * William was given his first serious chance to preach, the whole purpose of his mission, when he reached the camp of Batu Khan on the Volga. He was not well received.  Neverthless, his party continued on its way, reaching Karakorum in January 1254, after a difficult journey.  Once here William was eventually commanded by the Great Khan in person to debate with a Muslim and a Buddhist who best represented the truth.  His description of Buddhism was to be the first in western history.  A master of debate and the techniques of Christian dialectics, William, by his own account, got the better of his opponents-but to his great disappointment he obtained not a single convert.  Mongke himself, fully aware, it would seem, of the course of western history and politics, told William that while the Christains had the Scriptures they clearly did not follow their precepts.  "If I possessed the power to work miracles," William wrote, "he might have humbled himself."


 * Before leaving for home the Khan agreed that he might return. In Europe William reported to Louis IX, who had encouraged him on the eastward path in the first place.  He was never to return to Karakorum.  Clio the Muse 00:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * At the risk of wandering off-topic, I will remark that there is a huge discussion about the early Mongol-Christian contacts going on at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance. The two participants are definitely in need of a third opinion on the subject. Knowledgable people are welcome to chime in. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Trade secret depending on patent
Is it allowed to file a patent on some part of a production process while keeping the rest of the process secret? I think it is, but I'm asking because this seems to subvert the purpose of patents (limited monopoly as a reward for the publication of knowledge). Icek 19:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The patent examiner is only going to care about the scope of the patent as it is laid out by the application itself. So if I file a patent on device X, which I am using as part of process Y (which contains trade secrets), the patent examiner is not going to be thinking about process Y; just device X and whether it works and whether I've told you how it works. You do not have to disclose your entire business operation to get one patent on one part of it, as long as you explain that part completely. --24.147.86.187 00:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, that's what I thought - and I was thinking of an X and a Y which are practically useless unless combined. Icek 02:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Greatest German Writers
three greatest german writers of all time?Flakture 19:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Friedrich Schiller, Bertolt Brecht, Thomas Mann, Friedrich Hölderlin, Heinrich Heine. To name a few. I assumed you wanted a list that excludes philosophers.--Tresckow 20:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * A very broad question. Do you want the most influential? the most popular? the greatest talent? the most prodigious? Do you want only native-born Germans or anyone who wrote in the German language? Limit it to fiction, or allow philosophical or scientific writings? The Walk of Ideas in Berlin (pictured) gives a nice brief list of the big-hitters.
 * My personal list would be Goethe (runaway winner), Friedrich Nietzsche (if we allow philosophers) and The Brothers Grimm (or do they count as two?). I'll admit to never having read half of the others in the image to the right, though, and to my shame haven't even heard of one or two (I hope that admission won't make me a pariah here). (one more parenthesis for good luck! :) )GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 20:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Grimms just published the folk tales they collected; they did not create them themselves. --Lambiam 21:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I won't argue with Goethe, but, as others have already said, Friedrich Nietzsche (only Heine, whose Ludwig Börne has finally been Englished by Jeffrey Sammons, is maybe a near rival to Nietzsche for the greatest German prose, unless you count Luther's Bible; for a light & quick introduction to Nietzsche's sheer literary genius, just read Der Fall Wagner = The Wagner Case in a sitting) and Friedrich Hölderlin (unspeakably precocious and dazzling, the fount from which the best of all more recent German poetry, from Rilke to Trakl to Celan to George, flowed; pick up the bilingual anthology Hymns and Fragments by Sieburth) are indispensable, the two indispensable names for me. I assume they got left off that display out of (1) misplaced political correctness and (2) simple ignorant idiocy (more charitably: question of influence, since Hölderlin has no real predecessors or successors despite what I've said), respectively.  But Nietzsche would be happy to be spared involvement in vulgar German patrimony-thumping.  Wareh 21:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If we include those with German ancestry, Robert A. Heinlein probably counts. His article doesn't mention his ancestry though.  Dismas |(talk) 21:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Heinlein? You are joking, aren't you? 80.254.147.52 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 10:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You asked about the three greatest, and for me they are Goethe, Schiller, and Rainer Maria Rilke. Some more names worth mentioning are Gottfried von Straßburg, Friedrich von Hagedorn, Walther von der Vogelweide, Heinrich von Kleist, Günter Eich, Günter Grass, Novalis, Stefan George, Wilhelm Weigand, Theodor Storm, Eduard Mörike, Gerhart Hauptmann, Gotthold Ephraim Lessing, Friedrich Gottlieb Klopstock, Wilhelm Weigand, and Heinrich Böll.  Xn4  01:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fubbs
Who was 'Fubbs' and what was her relationship to a king of England? I need this answer for a quiz. Ta. Princess of the night 20:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * HMY Fubbs, Royal Yacht of King Charles II :) GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 20:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

'Fubbs', Princess, was Louise de Kerouaille, mistress to Charles II, so called because of her chubby cheeks. Clio the Muse 22:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Invasion of Manchuria
Obviously the League of Nations could not solve the problem of the Japanese Invasion of Manchuria. They tried to solve it with proposals, sanctions, etc, until finally Japan withdrew from the League altogether. Can anyone think of any unique solutions that could have been used to solve this issue, preferably something that the League didn't already try?

-Julio


 * Our League of Nations article suggests that there was no further step that the League was authorized to take. How far into the hypothetical are you willing to stretch this?  Could we tweak the League charter enough to give sanctions the force of law?  Could we extend its membership to that of the UN?  Could we give it an autonomous military arm?  Or are we stuck with looking for options with the League as it actually existed? &mdash; Lomn 21:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Im trying to find unique solutions to the Japanese Invasion of Manchuria while still mostly pertaining to the rules of League, but we could stretch it a little bit. Thanks!


 * Julio, let's pretend, first of all, that the United States had ratified the Treaty of Versailles, and joined the other powers in a new international order, an effective international order, based on meaningful concepts of collective security. Let's pretend, furthermore, that Russia was not isolated for so much of the League's history, and that Germany, Hungary and the other defeated powers of the Great War had been reconciled to the international order, and thus harboured no serious revisionist ambitions.  Let's further pretend that imperialism was a thing of the past, and not something that was to to be promoted in new and more malevolent forms by countries like Italy and Japan.  Let us also pretend that Great Britain, the one serious mainstay of the international order after the United States retreated back into isolationism, was not wary of entaglements in Europe, let alone the rest of the world.  Let us assume that the various powers would have been willing to act in concert against a rogue state, by first of all applying serious sanctions, including-most important-a complete oil embargo, which would have robbed the Japanese and Italians of the capacity to make war; and second by providing sufficient military force to check and reverse aggression if and when it did happen.


 * Finally, Julio, let us pretend that the League of Nations was not the League of Nations, then, I think you might very well be on the way to the 'unique solutions' you are looking for. But history is history, and the League of Nations was the League of Nations, which, as Mussolini said, "Was all very well when sparrows shout, but no good at all when eagles fall out."  Please forgive me for saying so, but the unique solution you are looking for is to stand history on its head.  Clio the Muse 22:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Clio, I understand that history is history and that we can't change what the League of Nations did about the Japanese Invasion of Manchuria. But I do understand where you're coming from and I still appreciate your input. I'm just wonndering that if people had the chance to go back in history and change the outcome, what would they have done differently. What different solutions would people have tried to use to actually solve the problem? Any ideas would be much appreciated. Thanks! -Julio


 * Issue a resolution condemning Japanese aggression; impose an immediate and total oil embargo; gather a League army; assemble in China and, from there, drive the invaders from Manchuria. In other words, the international community should not have troubled itself with the following, taken from a handbook on the League,


 * "As regards the military sanctions provided for in paragraph 2 of Article 16, there is no legal obligation to apply them… there may be a political and moral duty incumbent on states… but, once again, there is no obligation on them."


 * By all means speculate; reshape the past; indulge in the entertaining sport of the counter-factual. But, as I have already said, for the League of Nations to have acted other than it did it would not have been the League of Nations.  It had not the will; it had not the leadership; it had not the means to take action against the Japanese, beyond, that is, issuing paper condemnations.  Clio the Muse 23:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have a fancy for this kind of thing, Julio, try What If?: The World's Foremost Military Historians Imagine What Might Have Been, then What If? 2 and What Ifs? of American History, collections of essays (all ed. by Robert Cowley) on virtual history. One of my favourites is Pontius Pilate Spares Jesus: Christianity without the Crucifixion by Carlos M. N. Eire. Another good one is Thomas Fleming's Napoléon's Invasion of North America. Xn4  00:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks everyone. Anyone else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.87.200.184 (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The key would be US military forces. The US had reduced the size of their military considerably after WW1, which led Japan to think the US would not fight, or could be defeated.  Had the US maintained it's forces, the embargo placed on Japan might have actually resulted in Japan complying with the League of Nations, rather than attacking Pearl Harbor, since they would then be able to see that this action would result in their defeat.  Note that the US wouldn't formally need to be a member of the League in order to enforce it's will.  StuRat 04:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, my wife just asked me much the same question. And oddly I had just been reading a book which mentions this in passing, Roosevelt's Secret War: 1939-1941 by T.R. Fehrenbach.  According to him, the British offered to seriously oppose  the Japanese invasion if the US would support them.  Secretary of State Henry Stimson agreed and was in favor of issuing an ultimatum threatening serious action, economic sanctions and even war, but President Hoover was against it (as well as Franklin Roosevelt).  Fehrenbach compares this, more or less unfavorably, to an earlier Roosevelt, Teddy's, support of Japan against what was then seen as the threat,  Russia, during the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, in pursuit of a balance of power policy. He states that "most observers agree that a strong Anglo-American stand would have forced" the economically vulnerable Japanese to withdraw.  I agree that the weakness of US military forces were probably an important consideration - after all the Japanese showed in the Panay incident a few years later that they could deliberately attack the US military itself with relative impunity.John Z 05:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

commerialism
i am writing a college paper on commeriALISM AND THE AFFECTS ON CHILKDREN CAN YOU HELP ME. i NEED ABOUT THREE ARTICLES OR BOOK REFERENCES.tHANKYOU —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.252.86 (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Some possibly relevant articles here: Advertising (toy advertising, fast food advertising, marketing ethics), Anti-consumerism. Wareh 02:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

colonization and forced slavery in North America
I have the following questions for this title: When and where did it occur? What was life like for each culture before they integrated? In what ways was one culture able to defeat or control the other culture? What aspects of controlled culture were made to change? What was the intention of the controlling culture? How did they benefit from this control--or was the directed change intended to benefit the controlled culture? What were some unanticipated results of the directed change? I asked these questions because I want to know if there were any directed change during those time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.43 (talk) 03:05, 26 September 2007 (UTC) What is the situation with the two cultures like today? Have both cultures survived this process? this is homework. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.135.206 (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Where did you get the idea that there were two? AnonMoos 03:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Presumably from the homework outline. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 16:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The formulation of your questions is somewhat strange. You could start by reading our articles on the European colonization of the Americas, the Atlantic slave trade, Slavery in the United States, and any relevant articles they link to, and then see to what extent these answer the questions you have. --Lambiam 19:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I asked these questions because I want to know if there were any directed change during those time.


 * 'Before they integrated'. When did they integrate? Did I blink? Just kidding, but how do you determine when two cultures are integrated? In this case, one could say that happened when the slaves started to forget about their ancestor's culture. Also, it's a pretty vague question. "What was life like" is an excuse for any sort of answer, so pick whatever info you can find. "Was the directed change intended to benefit the controlled culture?" I believe the 'controllers' fooled themselves onto believing they were doing the others a favour, however odd that may sound. They made them christians, so in their view they sved their souls. People very easily fool themselves, especially if everyone around does it. DirkvdM 06:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

newspaper circulation statistics
is there a website or agency/association that lists statistics relating to the circulation and other facts about newspapers. im trying to find more information for the Marin Independant Journal thanksCholgatalK! 23:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The easy way to get such statistics is to contact their advertising department—it's one of the ways they try to appeal to advertisers. --24.147.86.187 01:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And in that case, according to http://www.marinij.com/advertise, "The Marin IJ dominates the affluent Marin County market with 95,448 daily readers and a circulation of almost 35,000." --24.147.86.187 01:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See Audit Bureau of Circulation -- Mwalcoff 09:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)