Humanities desk
< May 26	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 28 >

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 27[edit]

anti-communism[edit]

In the article titled "anti-communism" there is a photograph of anti-communists books.One of these books is titled "the pol pot regime".I wanted to know if the author is really Ben Kiernan.Thank you.189.122.225.231 (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A book of that name seems to have been written by Ben Kiernan, an Australian historian. Why do you ask? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It really was him - see Ben Kiernan, The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power, and Genocide in Cambodia Under the Khmer Rouge, 1975-1979, Yale University Press, 2002, 477 pages. Alansplodge (talk) 12:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is badly titled, because Ben Kiernan's book isn't anti-communist. It's mercilessly critical of the Pol Pot regime, which is not at all the same thing. And I don't think the Time Out guide to London is anti-communist either. 81.98.152.52 (talk) 22:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had there been any well-known debate between communism and anti-communism?[edit]

--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 01:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a very entertaining debate between "Capitalism" and "Socialism". μηδείς (talk) 01:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who was debating? I just haven't got youtube access yet.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 02:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Vickers and Gerry Caplan for the socialists, Leonard Peikoff and John Ridpath for the capitalists, held in 1984 at the University of Western Ontario. μηδείς (talk) 02:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the famous Kitchen Debate between Khrushchev and Nixon.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do most Americans think Nixon won the debate? Any sources? I saw the Chinese article said that.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 03:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The Oxford Union (OU) debating society discussed the motion "This House Believes that Capitalism can save the world" on 6th November 2008. Harpal Brar, chairman of CPGB-ML speaks against the motion." [1]

The leaders of the Communist Party, U.S.A. (Earl Browder) and the Socialist Party of America (Norman Thomas) had a celebrated and cordial debate in November 1935 at Madison Square Garden in New York, on the question, "Which road for American workers?", published the next year as a 46-page pamphlet by the Socialist Call.

See:Which road for the American workers? Socialist or Communist? Norman Thomas vs Earl Browder (PDF). [To open the 16-megabyte PDF, click a little "PDF" icon on the top left of this entry.]

To understand some of the quirks in that debate, it's helpful to know that only 21 months earlier (February 16, 1934) in the very same place, an organized group of Communists (then still following Stalin's catastrophic Third Period policy of attacking left-wing rivals as "Social Fascists") had broken up a Socialist and trade unionist rally in support of the Social Democratic Party of Austria's struggle against the Social Christian (or clerico-Fascist) dictatorship of Engelbert Dollfuss. By late 1935, the CPUSA was following the Communist International's new policy of an all-embracing Popular Front against Fascism and moving to the "right", while the Socialists (about to lose their most conservative, orthodox or pragmatic members to the Social Democratic Federation) were taking their own sharp "leftist" turn towards revolutionary socialism (pushed ironically by student firebrands, such as Gus Tyler and Andrew Biemiller, who would later become, at least for a while, vigorous labor-establishment apologists for George Meany's conservatism on cultural and strategic issues.) But many of the points made by each speaker would still be made by Communist and by democratic socialist or left-wing anti-Communist speakers today.

The Ref. desk, because it has no stable footnote section, is a poor place to give extensive bibliographic references, but you can see contrasting accounts of the 1934 riot and 1935 debate in, inter alia, Pacifist's Progress: Norman Thomas and the decline of American socialism by Bernard K. Johnpoll (Quadrangle Books, Chicago, 1968), pages 114-115 & 161-162, and in The Communist Party of the United States: From the Depression to World War II by Fraser M. Ottanelli (Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, N.J., 1991) pages 56-57 & 91-92. —— Shakescene (talk) 06:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

¶ If your definition of "well-known debate" isn't confined to oral exchanges in real time in the same place (or through a visual or audio link), then there's a celebrated exchange between the German Left Socialist leader Karl Kautsky and the leaders of the Bolshevik Revolution, Vladimir Lenin and Leon Trotsky:

The State and Revolution by Lenin;
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat., Kautsky's critique of Lenin;
The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, Lenin's retort;
Terrorism and Communism: A Contribution to the Natural History of Revolution., Kautsky's rejoinder; and
Terrorism and Communism, Trotsky's rebuttal. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When was Tang of Shang's reign?[edit]

The Chinese and English versions are different:Chinese:"(ca.1617-1588 BC)" English:"(ca. 1675 BC-1646 BC)" Both are unreferenced. I also noticed Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology Project does not go back to that time. So what are the sources(if any)?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 02:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Kerr (2013), A Short History of China, Oldcastle Books Ltd, ISBN 13: 9781842439685 [2] says "c. 1675 - c. 1646 BC". Alansplodge (talk) 14:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anything in Chinese history before ca. 700 B.C. is likely to have rather uncertain absolute chronology (and many things are quasi-legendary)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem so. I have also found in the notes accompanying a translation of the Analects of Confucius, a page headed "Traditional Chronology" which gives; "King Tang, 1766-1753 BCE. Defeated the evil Jie to found the Shang Dynasty." Alansplodge (talk) 15:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After quite a bit of frustrating Googling, it seems that there are 44 known chronologies for the change between the Xia, Shang and Zhou Dynasties. [3] Our article on the Xia–Shang–Zhou Chronology Project gives three chronologies, the XSZCP (which I suspect is being quoted by the Chinese WP), the The Cambridge History of Ancient China chronology, which I think is quoted in our article, and the traditional dates which I linked to above. I haven't been able to find the XSZCP results on-line - the link on our article seems to be corrupted as I get a "malware" warning. Alansplodge (talk) 17:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our List of rulers of China gives a date for the start of the Shang dynasty as 1600 using the XSZCP chronology. This tends to support my guess that the Chinese Wikipedia article is using this system. Alansplodge (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that is exactly what is in Chinese article. Chinese article says "the start and end of Shang Dynasty does not have a concensus. XSZCP gives that Shang was found in about 1600 BC to 1556 BC, and end in 1046 BC, which is mainly accepted in PRC; Dong Zuobing in early 20 century calculated by calendar(I guess someone had done that before e.g. Liu Xin) that Shang lasts between1766BC to 1111 BC, which is mainly accepted in ROC." The "mainly accepted in PRC/ROC" claim is unreferenced.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 02:42, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I guess the "44 known chronologies for the change between the Xia, Shang and Zhou Dynasties" is only 44 claims about Battle of Muye?--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 05:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure is anybody uses that as a datum point, but yes. It seems to be a guess at best. The XSZCP has used sources such as radio carbon dating from archaeological sites and datable astronomical information, such as lunar eclipses from surviving texts. The results have proved controversial to say the least. [4] Alansplodge (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is Communist Party of India (Maoist) the actual name of the "Communist Party of India (Maoist)" party?[edit]

Can someone either familiar with the relevant languages, or with the party itself, comment on whether Communist Party of India (Maoist) would be the English name by which the party described at our article Communist Party of India (Maoist) would call itself? Or is that article just another weird name due to WP naming conventions? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 03:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a wiki thing--it's a common format in the subcontinent. Compare Communist_Party_of_India_(Marxist) (with Hindi name), Pakistan Muslim League (N), etc. Muslim League schisms is quite funny. Henry ^Flower 03:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not just in Asia, we even have Communist Party of Great Britain (Marxist–Leninist), Splitters! ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Communist Party of India (Maoist)" is the name used in English. The name in Hindi is भारतीय कम्युनिस्ट पार्टी (माओवादी) (bharatiya kamyunist parti (maovadi), lit 'Indian Communist Party (Maoist)'), you can see a poster in Hindi here: http://www.anupamupharenews.com/?p=1893 . According to Malayalam wikipedia (http://ml.wikipedia.org/wiki/കമ്മ്യൂണിസ്റ്റ്_പാർട്ടി_ഓഫ്_ഇന്ത്യ_(മാവോയിസ്റ്റ്)), the name in Malayalam is 'Communist Party of India (Maoist)' (just transliterating the English name). etc, etc. --Soman (talk) 02:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thanks. I do believe I have heard similar things in Britain--in America we'd just move the "Maoist" part up front. But I suppose there might be ideological reasons for not doing so. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Communist thing more than a subcontinental thing - there's also Communist Party of Australia (Marxist–Leninist), also originating from the same schism. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a good historical reason for this, although my weak knowledge of Russian and Russian Marxism doesn't let me grasp all the details fully. The Bolshevik Party of Lenin & co. gained a temporary majority on an important vote in one Congress (I think in 1903) of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, allowing them to call themselves the RSDLP (Majority) [in transliterated Russian, RSDLP (B) for some inflection of Bolshevik for big, as in the Bolshoi Ballet], and correspondingly to call the faction that had usually outvoted them the Mensheviks or minority. The RSDLP split between Lenin's more revolutionary RSDLP or the RSDLP (Majority) and the more parliamentary-trade unionist regular RSDLP (with which Leon Trotsky at first aligned), who I think saw no need to qualify their name. So a revolutionary group (the kind that prints a newspaper called Spark to reflect Lenin's Iskra) which splits from and wants to distinguish itself, in admiration of Lenin's achievement, from (say) your regular old workaday establishment ex-revolutionary Communist Party of India, will naturally feel drawn to declaring that it's the Marxist or Marxist-Leninist CPI as opposed to those pseudo-Marxists and pseudo-Leninists in the old machine.
¶ But this isn't confined to Leninism; you'll find many parenthetical variants in church history, trade unions and the history of the First International Workingman's Association and its successors. A few years earlier, although with far less importance, the Socialist Labor Party of America had split with both Daniel De Leon and Morris Hillquit leading what they called the Socialist Labor Party with its own authentic edition of The People.
¶ Outside the purely Leninist universe, a familiar example might be the 1970's split in the Irish Republican Army and its political party (and historical parent) Sinn Féin. The now dominant Provisionals of Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness began as the "Provisional Army Council" of the IRA splitting away from the "Official" Army Council, and at the beginning the former group called themselves the Irish Republican Army (Provisional). The two splinters of Sinn Féin distinguished themselves by the streets on which their headquarters sat. Official Sinn Féin (with a more Marxist, less nationalist emphasis) started calling itself Sinn Féin, the Workers' Party, and then just the Workers' Party before merging with several other left-wing Irish parties. Corrections, clarifications and contradictions from those who know more, of course welcome here at Wikipedia (Jimbo-Walesian). —— Shakescene (talk) 14:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed answers. It was actually the IRA I was thinking of when I mentioned Britain above. μηδείς (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico City[edit]

I know hundreds years ago, this city was build on a lake, which is lake Texcoco. How did the Aztec build a city on a lake? And how deep was the lake? 184.97.234.167 (talk) 03:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Mexico City, History of Mexico City, and [[Tenochtitlan? μηδείς (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I skimmed through them. I doubt that there is any mention of how they build the city on the lake.184.97.234.167 (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From what the articles say, it appears that the city was built on an island in the (shallow) lake, with causeways connecting it to the shore. As the Spanish settlers took over the area, they eventually drained the lake. I googled the question and nothing jumps out as regards the depth of the lake. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:13, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AZTEC ARCHITECTURE -Part 1 by MANUEL AGUILAR-MORENO, Ph.D. says that "When the sacred city was founded, a temple in honor of Huitzilopochtli was immediately erected. The temple was constructed of reeds and straw with a foundation of swamp grass." (p.15) The later masonry structures must have required much more substantial foundations, presumably of rubble, since there seems to have been no shortage of stone. However; "Since the structures were massive and on top of a marshy, muddy island, they continuously sank. As a result, new layers were added to pre-existing structures. This is particularly true of the Great Temple located in the central plaza" (p. 16)

The document does describe how the "floating gardens" were constructed: "Chinampas, known as 'floating gardens' were rectangular patches of earth on the swamp used to cultivated food and to build houses. They were constructed on the swampy lakebed by staking out long rectangular enclosures of about 2.5m wide and 30m long. Stakes were woven together to form fences which would be covered with decaying vegetation and mud. Another plot would be constructed parallel to the first. The water in between each plot formed a canal. This developed long rectangular chinampa patterns. Chinampas were stabilized by planting slender willows around their perimeter. The willows’ dense roots anchored the retaining walls." (p.30) Alansplodge (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see now. Technically, they did not build a city on a lake. They built it on a island inside a lake and since the lake is shallow, they can easily expand their island using Chinampas.184.97.234.167 (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be the case, although it was a struggle to find any account of it. In the source that I linked above, the original island is described as "tiny" and on another page, "muddy", so not the most promising starting point. Alansplodge (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do I identify the owners of a business?[edit]

(Humanities? Well, the header did include "economics".) I've become involved in dispute resolution on a WP:BLP for my sins, and the ownership of a certain company is a bone of contention because it impinges on this and that. Neither of the parties have any reliable sources for their disparate claims about it. They typically offer rather old interviews in rather promotional publications. The company itself says nothing about who owns it on its homepage. Is there such a thing as an online index of American-based businesses, which lists their owners (whether American or not)? Or any other way of finding out, without having to trudge disconsolately through any more promotion and obfuscation than I've already done? I confess I'm naive about these matters, and usually happy to be so. Perhaps the owners are closely guarded secrets only to be obtained by subpoenaing Swiss banks? Bishonen | talk 16:20, 27 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

EDIT CONFLICT Is the company publicly traded? If so then that would be rather easy to find the ownership amounts on financial websites. If not you can still find contact information for privately held companies on such databases as Hoovers and then go to the state that they list as home for the company and the state government website will usually have filing records, owners, registered agents and the like listed for the company.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 18:56, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am reading the first response in the context of OP's "index of American-based businesses", a business need not be headquartered in the US but from what I can see on the wikipedia article and the business website does <redacted> have any US presence? If it doesn't than the only suggestion is if Saudi government or the EU have similar type data websites.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:05, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Marketdiamond. A simple google search for "hoovers + <the company name>" got me exactly what I needed. And thank you too, Looie, though I removed your reply… :-[ There are reasons it's better not to have any of those names mentioned in a public discussion here. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Glad that worked out for you, in a non-legal advice, non accessory way ;-)!^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 22:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Am Shalem and Koah Lehashpia most votes gain from which place[edit]

Which place of Israel gave most votes to Am Shalem and which one gave most votes to Koah Lehashpia?--Donmust90 (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

There's this which have map links at the bottom, however given that both parties combined got less than 3% of the total vote it might be hard if not impossible to map that in any way that is meaningful in analysis, i.e. "place" that "gave most votes" no place probably gave more than 10% so even if you found that place, 90 out of 100 would be against those parties.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 19:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Donmust90, the main reason you aren't finding or being provided witn answers to these questions, is that Israel is not populated in segregated enclaves according to ethnic origin, religious stream, and political party. If that was true at the beginning of the state and the waves of immigration in the 1950s - we are now three generations past that, along with internal mobility, ongoing immigration, and changes in the very makeup of the religious factions and political entities. It's also a lively democracy in which married couples split their allegiances, some Jews vote for non-Zionist parties, Arabs vote for Jewish ultraorthodox religious parties, and the whole gamut. The more time you spend on actually reading the pages on topics that interest you and reading the content available through External links at the bottom of pages to primary sources of information - the better you'll gain understanding of the actual situations that aren't neatly pigeonholed nor predictable. You're fortunate in that a great amount of information is available on the Web, in English, about Israeli demographics and politics - though not necessarily parcelled neatly into categories. -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If think that Deborahjay's description isn't really accurate. Israeli politics to follow ethnic/religious/sectarian lines. The % of Israeli Jews voting for non-Zionist parties is less than 0.2%. Votes for orthodox parties come from within the orthodox community, etc.. It is not a water-tight system, but Donmust's questions are not out of line. --Soman (talk) 00:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was specifically referring to these requests for information according to geographic locales. Is not "populated in segregated enclaves" clear enough? -- Deborahjay (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otdia[edit]

Where is the Otdia in the Marshall Islands? Does Wikipedia have an article with its modern name?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 22:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's right there, off Wotje Atoll. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's just bad map data. Otdia is Wotje: [5]. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 00:36, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Otto von Kotzebue who visited in the 1820s said there were "middling-sized cat, which feeds on the fruit of the pandanus tree, and makes its nest in the dead branches, which it easily hollows out" on the island. What are these animals? Did the original Micronesians settlers of the Marshall Islands brought cats that later became feral or were they brought by earlier Europeans in the area? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As total OR I suspect it was some variety of cuscus which is the closest (New Guinea) animal that would fit the described habits. They would almost certainly have had to have been introduced by humans, which has been documented happening closer to New Guinea. μηδείς (talk) 02:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were there even cuscus on the Marshall Islands? Just because New Guinea had them doesn't mean the Marshall Islands had them. There is no fauna section on the article about the Marshall Islands and List of mammals of the Marshall Islands mentions only marine mammals.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no evidence. They would definitely not have been native to the Marshall Islands. But my point was that dogs, pigs, and chickens, all of which were earlier introduced to New Guinea, were later introduced to many Pacific islands, as were cuscus known to have been to other islands, if not the Marshals, as a source of meat and fur. It is documented that cuscus were indeed introduced to other islands closer to New Guinea for this very purpose, and that in some places they were hunted back into extinction. The Southern common cuscus, for example, is known to have been introduced to the Solomon Islands. The cuscus is also described as cat sized, and is known to eat pandanus and to nest in trees, while house cats (which it is impossible are meant above) do not. μηδείς (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]