Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 May 12

Humanities desk
< May 11	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 13 >

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.

May 12

Modern architecture

Modern Diner in Pawtucket

Here's a picture of the Modern Diner in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, USA. With no architectural style being given, I've guessed that this unusual building is an example of modern architecture. Is this an appropriate classification? I wasn't clear from the modern architecture whether this were the best description. Nyttend (talk) 01:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't check for references, but it looks like it fits Streamline Moderne or more generally Art Deco, both of which draw from modernism, but not exclusively from modernism. I don't think it is incorrect to call it an example of modern architecture, but I think there are more typical examples, and I'd use a more specific category for this diner (after checking references, of course). ---Sluzzelin talk 01:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Such diners were styled to look like streamline trains. Some thought they actually were railroad cars, but most were merely built to resemble railroad cars, such as those on the California Zephyr.[1]] Railroad diners, in the early 20th century in the U.S., were considered to have fine food. Edison (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

But would it be called (in "serious" arthistory) anything other than folk art or vernacular architecture.? I think I remember websites which list american local architecture under this headline. P. S.: Commercial vernacular architecture and Roadside architecture is used.--Radh (talk) 06:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If it designed by professional designers and manufactured in a factory I do not see how it is either "folk" or "vernacular." These diners were not built on the spot. Edison (talk) 14:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The only source I have for its architectural style is the database of the National Register of Historic Places, on which the diner is listed. If you go to this page and type in "Modern Diner", you'll get a summary of the Register's data on the site; its style is listed as "Sterling Streamliner", but I'd never heard of any "streamline" style of architecture, so I assumed that its placement in the architecture line was one of the many small errors in the Register's database. Nyttend (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Diners of New England, the Modern Diner was the first diner listed in the National Register, and which "helped stave off the destruction of an extremely rare Sterling Sreamliner, a model built by J. B. Judkins between 1939 and 1941 that featured a dramatic architectural profile akin to a speeding locomomotive" The same book also explains: "Sterling. 1936-42. Former coach builder that retooled to build diners. Barrel-monitor hybrid style clad in porcelain panels. Its Streamliner was a dramatic bullet-nosed diner designed to evoke railroad imagery." Randy Garbin, Diners of New England, p 16 and p xi, Stackpole Books, 2005, ISBN 0811731413 ---Sluzzelin talk 04:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

More 1904 SCOTUS

I'm now working on a draft of the article on the 1904 US Supreme Court case, The Iroquois, and have several questions.

1. Why is no plaintiff or defendant listed in the name of the case? Attorneys are listed for petitioners and respondent, nothing strange about that.
2. I'm surprised the Court took this case, and that it wrote an opinion on it. This decision set no legal precedents for lower courts, as far as I can tell, was a unanimous decision, and seemed to merely scan the lower court rulings to see if there was a preponderance of the evidence that they were wrong. There was no such preponderance. I'd appreciate any insight into why the Court in 1904 didn't do with this case what I believe it would have done today, which I speculate would be (a) deny cert and let the appellate court's ruling stand; or (b) issue a per curiam ruling with no written opinion.

Thanks in advance - Tempshill (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It's an admiralty case, which are often named for the ship. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't SCOTUS have original jurisdiction over certain maritime law cases? That could be why they took the case. EdwinHJ | Talk 03:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

No, private admiralty cases are not within the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, although they do fall within federal (as opposed to state-court) jurisdiction, which may be what you are thinking of. The answer to Tempshill's question is that as of 1904, the Supreme Court did not have discretion whether to accept most of the cases that were brought to it. The idea that the Court should be empowered to decide for itself what cases to take evolved over time, and the jurisdiction did not become mostly discretionary until 1925 (and almost entirely discretionary until 1988). For more background, please see Certiorari#United States and Judiciary Act of 1925. Finally, it's also worth noting that admiralty law was a much more important branch of the law at the turn of the last century (considering what proportion of both passenger and freight transport was by sea at that time) than it might be today. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks all for the answers; this helps me a lot. Based on the decision itself, I had jumped to the conclusion this case set no legal precedents, as the Court went out of its way to mention that every case in this area had to be decided entirely on its own; but I was wrong, as one source I found online states that The Iroquois expanded an injured seaman's ability to sue for "maintenance and cure" and additional damages if the captain neglects to put into a nearby port to get his injuries treated. Even more important in the pre-Panama Canal shipping days. Tempshill (talk) 04:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sinhalese-speaking Muslims

Is there any Sinhalese who follow Islam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.95.73 (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

There probably are, but they would be a very small minority. Our article says that 93% are Buddhists, with minorities of Christians and Hindus, but no mention of Muslims, though there probably are some, just not enough to be even considered a minority.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

KageTora is right, the majority of Sinhalese-speakers are Buddhist, but I believe that a significant minority follow Christianity, Hinduism, and Islam. I note that the 93% in the article isn't cited, and having been to the country myself, I would suggest that the percentage of non-Buddhist Sinhalese is higher than suggested, although that may be from the influence of the Tamils, and then one gets onto less firm ground, trying to determine whether the Tamils who have integrated into the Sinhalese culture would be included in those percentages or not. In any case, I do recall seeing mosques in Colombo (as well as churches and mandirs) and several people in dress commonly associated with Islam. But, again as KageTora says, the number of Muslims in Sri Lanka is probably very small. Maedin\^talk 10:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Careful about confusing the terms Sri Lankan and Sinhalese. According to the article Islam in Sri Lanka about 8% of the Sri Lankan population, or almost 2 million people, are Muslims, mostly Sri Lankan Moors, but none of the three distinct groups mentioned are etnhic Sinhalese. According to her article's categorization, Judge Shirani Tilakawardene is a Muslim who married a Sinhalese. Since Islamic marital jurisprudence traditionally doesn't allow Muslim women to enter marriage with non-Muslim men, I guess it is conceivable (though perhaps not likely) that her husband converted to Islam. I couldn't find any reference one way or the other, but it is similarly conceivable that there are other ethnic Sinhalese who converted to Islam. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(ec) According to Religion in Sri Lanka, there are the same proportions of Muslims and Christians in Sri Lanka – about 7.5% each. But the question was about Sinhalese-speaking Muslims, not Sri Lankan Muslims. My understanding is that most Sri Lankans speak Sinhalese either fluently or to some extent. English is widely spoken, but not universally, and so there would be occasions when you couldn’t get by without some basic knowledge of Sinhalese. As for the Sinhalese speakers who’ve migrated to Canada, Australia, the US and other places, many of them are Tamils, who are mainly Muslim; but many are Sinhalese ethnics, or Burghers. Those numbers would be trickier to pin down. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Jack, the majority of Tamils are Hindu. Do you mean the majority of Tamils who emigrate are Muslim?

No, I think I meant what I said, but what I said was completely wrong. They are of course predominantly Hindu. There may be a higher proportion of Muslim Tamils among those who've emigrated, but I couldn't say for sure. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, :-) Maedin\^talk 06:37, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The OP has asked two mutually exclusive things as though they were the same—Sinhalese and Sinhalese-speaking. In any case, the answer is yes, there are surely both ethnic Sinhalese and Sinhalese speakers who identify as Muslims. Maedin\^talk 06:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Penehupifo Pohamba

Estimately, how old would Penehupifo Pohamba be? Her husbank (Hifikepunye)'s brithday is August 1935, so he is 73. Would Penehupifo be around 1937-1944 aging between 71 and 64? no source said what's her birthyear range, no articles mention when was Hifikepunye and Penehupifo marry?--69.229.4.179 (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It may help if you tell us who these people are.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hifikepunye Pohamba is the national leader of Namibia who took over Sam Nujoma Penehupifo is the first lady of namibia. --69.229.4.179 (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I did a Google Search and found nothing useful, but you could try asking here instead.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I went on that site. They have no place to ask the questions. To call namibia or write an email is internationally contact. Making a long distance call is a tough choice.--69.229.4.179 (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

If you can post on Wikipedia, I'm sure you can send emails to Namibia.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 07:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Pohambas married in 1983 according to BBC and according to this biography. Although the magazine article doesn't give her age, it says she had her first child (from her first marriage – her first husband was killed by a landmine) between 1971 and 1974 and her youngest child (with Pohumba) in 1990, so she's certainly younger than Hifikepunye and likely younger than the date range you mention.

She's in the news a lot as she's very active in public life – but I guess it's going to take either patience or madgoogleskillz to track down a specific age mention in all these articles. [2], [3], [4]. Incidentally, she certainly sounds notable enough through her charity work to have her own Wikipedia article, anyone feel like starting Penehupifo Pohamba? Best, WikiJedits (talk) 13:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Found a date. June 16, 1948, according to the Namibian newspaper New Era. She is 60. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--69.229.4.179 (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Communism

Karl Marx envisaged history as going through several stages. The two last and final stages, according to him, were socialism and pure communism, which he simply called communism. I've heard that in the last and final stage, communism, there will be no governments or laws.

Is that true? If so, then wouldn't there be chaos and anarchy, with everybody doing whatever they want to each other? If so, then how did Karl Marx respond to this question and issue?

Bowei Huang (talk) 06:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I think his idea was that in Communism everybody would be working together and co-operating, so there would be no need for government or laws. Like the traditional idea of ant society. He envisaged a world in which human nature was different. Socialism works to a certain extent, but Communism has never worked on a broad scale such as an entire country. It does, however, work very well for tribal communities, such as in the Amazon or PNG. It's because these people all know each other very intimately and they have to work together just to survive. One person doing something for selfish gains will get kicked out of the clan. Not so in a country as big as, say, Russia, where it is much easier to fool other people for your own benefit.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 07:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As the user above says, Marx saw communism as the natural evolution of socialism, in which government would become increasingly unnecessary as everything was organised logically, and the need for national planning and legislation would disappear. However, he didn't expound on this at length, and later Marxists have developed the idea in very different ways. Countries which have declared themselves communist in the past have taken the opposite view to Marx on this: they have declared themselves communist and had the declared aim of gradually implementing socialism. Warofdreams talk 09:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Also things work as long as they can use the riches accumulated by the evil fascist capitalists or steal from their own people at home (or from those family members working their asses off in Florida), a thing in modern western countries is called "taxation", or can simply lock the door and throw away the key.--Radh (talk) 11:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hey, way to take a question specifically about Marxist philosophy and respond with a tired rant against Soviet-style socialism! Pretty dang useful! --98.217.14.211 (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Way more useful to think about Cuba and Russia and Zimbabwe and North Korea than to dream about pie in communist or socialist sky.--Radh (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Useful"? I think that perhaps you misunderstand the purpose of a reference desk. In case it needs to be spelled out, the point is to find answers, or references that contain answers to specific questions asked. The point is not to pontificate on tangential topics that you feel are "useful". APL (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Any question about the last stage of socialism, Will there be government in communism or not" very urgently needs all the pontification it can get."--Radh (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

answer to comrade 9821714211: Marxist philosphy: there is no and there can be no marxist "philosophy" (see the Thesis on Feuerbach), marxism is a science.

answer to APL: Like the "tangantial" topics. Real socialism is a tangantial topic of Marx Engels phililogy, very marxist this, also a tiny bit cowardly to close the eyes before the real socialism.

trying to answer Bowei Huang:. After the capitalist system did the dirty work of maximizing the productive forces in society and minimizing worker' s conditions, revolution will surely come (but only if these conditions have been met, which shows that neither Russia nor China nor anywhere else ever has seen a MarxistEngelsian revolution). Change will come, the expropriators will be expropriated, then all the political power too goes to the working classes. Peace and sunshine, anarchy is the endgame, but the bad rests of capitalist society have to be delt with first: thus the need (for a time only) of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Statements from MarxEngels on this are very thin on the ground, and they don' t look very bloodthirsty, defin. not Leninist, but very reformist (if Wolfgang Leonhard, Sowjetideologie heute, is to be believed). The Paris Commune was an example for MarxEngels. Both really thought their socialism was scientific. They are no utopian socialists and did not want to predict the future. --Radh (talk) 06:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Since Marxism 'proper' has never been put into practise, I would call it a 'theoretical science'--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If you accept Marx’s definitions, analysis and theory, then the withering away of the state was just a logical conclusion. He postulated that the establishment of communism, with its “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need,” egalitarianism, there would be no need for any kind of government. Nor would there be any problems, because everyone would jointly decide anything that needed deciding. Then, there would be unicorns! DOR (HK) (talk) 07:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

In my world, people doing unnecessary jobs don't give up their positions lightly; did Marx say why he expected politicians to go against their private interest? —Tamfang (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No, but my guess would be that Marx would simply say, "It would no longer be in their private interest to fail to contribute their fair share to society." DOR (HK) (talk) 05:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

They could become comedy actors. That's what they are best at anyway. What is the difference between a yarn spun by an old lady and a yarn spun by a politician? One's a ball of wool.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Churchill and national anthem

Found this interesting pic in the Ship's cat article where Prime Minister Winston Churchill is stroking a cat while the national anthem is being played. Wasn't he supposed to stand in attention? Jay (talk) 10:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The caption indicates that he's not "stroking" the cat like you claim, but that he's stopping the cat from walking down the gangplank and leaving the ship. Presumably if he'd waited until after the anthem the cat would already be onboard the American ship and someone would have to go chase after him, which would probably not convey the sense of dignity that they were going for. APL (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Also note that the rest of the company are not stood at attention. While the British have a bit more of a relaxed attitude to this sort of thing than many places, it makes me wonder if the photo was really taken during the playing of the anthem. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I did check out the section God Save the Queen#Performance in the United Kingdom and it seems like the relaxed attitude came about in the latter part of the 20th century, though the article provides no references. This picture was taken during war time. I checked the original source and it provides the same description about the national anthem playing. But I'll go with APL's explanation. Jay (talk) 07:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well done for getting the original source. I'll add a link to it from the caption. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Until recently it was normal to stand during the national anthem, but I'm not sure a civilian would "stand to attention", that's a military concept. --Tango (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Up to the 1960s or 70s the National Anthem would be played at the end of a film. Some people stood to attention, but most people just ignored it and walk out. I don't know when exactly the practice of playing the NA stopped in UK cinemas. 78.146.17.231 (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not correct to say people ignored the anthem, but it was a standing joke in the 60s and early 70s that people would rush out of the cinema while the credits were playing so that they'd already have left when the anthem played. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Most people would stand to attention when it played. That seems comical now. 89.240.108.251 (talk) 12:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In Australian cinemas, the NA was played at the start of proceedings, a much more appropriate place imo. But it too was phased out by the mid-70s. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Group of people mutally agreeing to will wealth to each other - hypothetical question

If a group of elderly people (single and without dependants) got together and all wrote wills that agreed to leave all their wealth to be shared among the survivors of the group, would this be a tontine or would it be legal (in the UK or US for example)? If the wills agreed that the final survivor left their wealth to a charity, it would be a way for that charity to raise money also, as well as benefiting all but the first deceased of the group. Yes, I know legal questions are not allowed, but this is purely hypothetical. 78.145.21.210 (talk) 13:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

A tontine involves paying money up front, which this doesn't, so I doubt the laws against tontines would apply. I can't see any reason why such a will would be illegal, but I am far from an expert on such things. --Tango (talk) 15:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Some countries have death duties. Also, wills can be contested by relatives.
Sleigh (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Time line

I am searching for the time line of Chedorlaomer attacking the kings of Sodom and taking Lot as a captive. I searched using "time line, Chedorlaomer" and could not find anything. Can someone help?? Ldfoster (talk) 14:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean by a time line? We have the primary source in Genesis. Do you mean RS's best guesses at which year this took place in? --Dweller (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

See King James version of the text --Dweller (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You might also find the commentary by Rashi helps with unpicking any lack of clarity over the years. --Dweller (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I am searching for the year Chedorlaomer attacked the kings of Sodom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldfoster (talk • contribs) 11:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

RS disagree with each other once you get past the birth of Terah, the father of Abraham. See this site which isn't an RS, but is a reasonable accumulation of knowledge. I think if you don't need an accurate year, an assumption it's about 2090 after Adam's creation is fair, and therefore about 3,650 years ago by Jewish reckoning. --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Turn of the century Italian painter

Hi, I'm looking for an end-of-the-19th, beginning-20th century italian painter. His name is close to Volpeano. One famous painting represents a demonstration with workers marching in a frontal row in an elongated composition. It dates from the first decade of the 20th. Any help would be very much appreciated. 190.229.72.180 (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Giuseppe Pellizza da Volpedo? --Zerozal (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Giuseppe Pellizza da Volpedo? --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

C-c-c-combo ! Grazie mile. 190.229.72.180 (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Pope Pious XII

It is my understanding that Pope Pious XII blessed the tanks in exchange for keeping the Jews in Italy safe. What year was that?

p. chacon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.244.138.44 (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This page[5] (which probably doesn't meet Wikipedia standards as a reliable source) mentions "Brigadier Tetley and members of the (British) 25th Tank Brigade at the Vatican to receive the blessing of Pope Pius XII, Summer 1944". Are you referring to a blessing of Allied or Nazi/Axis tanks? And it's generally spelt Pius XII even in English. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 14:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Psychology "taking offense"

How do you call in psychology people who would take offense for everything? Is there a name for people who are susceptible, touchy to an extreme? Do these people who take offense for everything have a disturbed past?--80.58.205.37 (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

People who have to spend time with you? :P Joke. But mostly when I hear people accusing others of being 'touchy', 'tak[ing] offense for everything', it's because the person accusing them has (either deliberately or innocently) been unpleasant, manipulative or insensitive. Sometimes it's because the person doing the accusing doesn't see the offence in some external thing which has upset someone. Rarely (in my experience) is it because the upset person has actually taken offence when there is no reason to do so. I suggest a little empathy; try to understand why this person is offended. 80.41.124.217 (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How about "hypersensitive" as in DSM-IV Narcissistic Personality Disorder: Behavior or a fantasy of grandiosity, a lack of empathy, a need to be admired by others, an inability to see the viewpoints of others, and hypersensitive to the opinions of others. --Digrpat (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

By the way, this is probably a personality quirk and not something pathological that needs to be named. Tempshill (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Neurotic? Psychotic? Shizoid? 78.144.253.38 (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Paranoid. The Jade Knight (talk) 09:02, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Marriage Laws for Muslims

I have heard that Muslim women cannot marry a non-muslim, according to traditional law. Is this the same for men? One of my friends (a muslim man from Turkey) married a Japanese lady (a buddhist). I know Turkish people tend to have more relaxed thinking than some other states, so it may be OK for him to do this. What about traditional law, though?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 21:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I just linked to the significant subsection of the relevant article a few minutes ago and a few questions above: Islamic_marital_jurisprudence#Other_religions:

"Traditionally, Muslim jurists hold that Muslim women may only enter into marriage with Muslim men. The Qur'an explicitly allows Muslim men to marry chaste women of the People of the Book, a term which includes Jews and Christians."

---Sluzzelin talk 22:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and yes, that's what prompted my question. Interestingly, it doesn't include Buddhists. Possibly because they didn't really know much of their existence when the Quran was written.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Buddhists aren't People of the Book so why would the Koran include them? Or do you mean why doesn't it explicitly forbid marriage to them? Rmhermen (talk) 01:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I know that. And, no, I wasn't asking another question.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 02:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I would be really surprised if the Islamic world as a whole hadn't had extensive contact with Buddhists right from its beginning. (The beginning of the former, of course.) Tempshill (talk) 03:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am pretty sure the Arabs would have had extensive contact with them due to their trade routes throughout South East Asia, and the writer of the Quran would have most certainly known of the existence of other religions (not just Buddhism), hence the phrase above. I think my remark was that it doesn't include people of other religions besides Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. I'm not surprised. It was just interesting to note that.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

WWII Slovenia

I'm searching for a map (the most precise as possible) of Slovenia divided between Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and Hungary during WWII. I wasn't able to find it on Wikipedia so I'm asking here. --151.51.29.96 (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I can't help you, I'm just answering so it won't seem like your querry is totally ignored. I browsed briefly through the Slovene internets, with no sucess. Not even the neonazi sites, which usually harp on about the grand Slovene nation, father of all Europe and everything civilised, have the map. Odd, you can usually find it in any school book. :(

I did find this page, though: http://www.sistory.si/english.html It seems to still be under construction, but in time it could prove a valuable resource. TomorrowTime (talk) 13:23, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This might help.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No, not really... That's a map of the County of Tyrol that went obsolete after WWI. Only the NW part of Slovenia is in there, and the map was different during WWII. Slovenia was basicaly split in half, with the SW and Ljubljana Italian, the NE and Maribor German (Hitler (in)famously appeared on a now disused (guess why) speach balcony of the old municipal building in Maribor and demanded: "Machen sie mir dieses Land wieder Deutsch!" - Make this land German again!), and a tiny portion of the extreme NE part of Slovenia Hungarian. There was also a couple of villages on a couple of square kilometres that was taken over by Croatia (NDH) in the SE part. It's really odd I can't find nothing on the net, there really should be a map floating around somewhere... :( TomorrowTime (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Huh. I found a map in the NDH article that, although centered on Croatia and of poor quality, gives a basic idea of the division. Slovenia on that map is divided into three sections: the littoral section (in yellow) is marked as part of Italy, which it was from WWI. Then there is the grey part, which was under Italian occupation but previously not part of Italy, and the light blue part, which was under German occupation. Unfortunately, the Hungarian part is too far to the NE to be seen on that map. TomorrowTime (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

More on the post-WWI assignment of teritories now part of Slovenia and Croatia to Italy (i.e. the yellow part of the above poor quality map) here. Also, the Italian wiki has a slightly better map - still centered on NDH, but this one with Hungarian presence in Slovenia as well. Still not a perfect answer to the question, but somewhat helpful providing you check out a map of present day Slovenia. TomorrowTime (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I looked on the Slovenian Wiki, but it was really hard to search for anything without Google Translate's help. And I found nothing that I could understand enough to think it may even be helpful. Sorry.--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 10:56, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I tried there first (my Slovene-fu skills give me an edge over you, grasshopper), but there doesn't seem to be anything. My second bet, as I said, was the Slovene neo-nazis (Slav Nazis, who'd thunk it...), who seem to have an unhealthy fetish for all sorts of historical maps of Slovenia (although, I suppose, those are meant to prove just how us Slovenes are superior to all you other damn backward European nations, and in light of this, a map of WWII occupied Slovenia is somewhat a downer.) Bottomline, I can't find anything. Sorry, I really wish I could help. :( TomorrowTime (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I only have a moderate understanding of Slavic languages, but putting them all together I can generally guess what is written in most of them, but I can't speak any of them anymore. Bit strange, that, isn't it? Anyway, what do you mean, you wish you could help? I thought I was helping YOU?!?! You're the one who wanted the map, not me. haha!--KageTora - (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 00:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Near as i can tell, Germany got Lower Styria (de:Untersteiermark), Carinthia (de:Koroška my source actually says de:Kärnten but that looks to be wrong), and Upper Carniola (de:Oberkrain), while Italy got the rest, Hungary got Prekmurje, and Italy got the rest. here's the best map i've found so far (from this forum thread).—eric 04:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Commoning and Community Building

Has research or theory been published concerning the community building aspects of commoning practices?

By commoning I am referring to the ancient English practice (which included such commons as herbage and pannage), and to similarly classified communal practices around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.172.118.200 (talk) 22:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Tragedy of the commons is the only thing I can think of, but it might lead you to other things. 78.149.224.240 (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)