Humanities desk
< December 30	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	January 1 >

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.

December 31[edit]

Where do/did Yugoslavia's external and internal borders come from? When were they first drawn? By whom?[edit]

Hello, I have reading some articles about Yugoslavia, but I still have questions : where do the external borders, and the internal borders (of the republics and the autonomous provinces) come from? What I am certainly NOT trying to do is asking questions like "when did Vojvodina become part of Serbia", "when did Kosovo join Serbia", "when did Slovenia become independent",.... I have already found all that stuff on the web. What I mean is : when were those borders drawn for the first time? When were they imprinted on maps for the first time? And by whom? And based of what? For instance : I know that Kosovo was already a concept in the Ottoman era, but it was a lot bigger, containing parts of present-day Central Serbia as well (and even Skopje!).

What I have already found is : - the border between Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia is based on the old border of the Ottoman Empire, just like the border between Vojvodina and Central Serbia

I hope you understand my question, if not, I will reformulate. Many thanks, I hope someone can help me, because I have been looking for quite some time! Evilbu (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are probably a several dozen or even hundreds of different segments of internal and external Yugoslav borders, each with its own history. In some cases, borders ultimately go back to property lines between adjacent estates of medieval nobles. They might, for example, have been drawn for the first time when a noble's estate was divided among heirs and marked off in a field with both heirs on horseback looking on. At a later point in history, one of those estates might have owed allegiance to the Habsburgs, another to the kings of Hungary or to the Ottoman sultans. Accounting for the first drawing of every segment of these borders would be a massive research task and could probably fill a book. Marco polo (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marco's right -- it would take too long to discuss every border here, but for the answers you seek, check out the Historical Atlas of Central Europe by Paul Robert Magocsi. It explains all of the internal and external border changes in detail. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Albania's borders have been pretty much the same for centuries. I believe because of mountains on its landward side. Wrad (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to the above-mentioned atlas, Albania did not exist as a definite entity until 1913. Before then, the area we now call "Albania" was part of a few Ottoman districts. There were also some minor adjustments to the Albania-Yugoslavia boundary after WWI. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was referring to the time before the Ottoman Empire. The borders are old, even if they aren't very stable. Wrad (talk) 01:56, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ottomans ruled Albania for nearly 450 years! Before that, the area was fought over at times by Skanderbeg's short-lived Albanian state, feuding warlords, Stefan Dusan's Serbs, the Bulgarians, the Despotate of Epiros, the Venetians and the Byzantine Empire. So I'm not sure what you mean by the borders of Albania being particularly old. You are correct that throughout history, with the exception of the Ottoman period, the southern Dinaric Alps have tended to separate political entities, but it's common in Europe for mountains ranges to serve as borders. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry. That was basically what I was trying to say. Mountains = borders. Wrad (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fairly common throughout the world that mountains, rivers and other natural boundries often serve as borders although obviously borders often change over time for various reasons Nil Einne (talk) 08:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elam, Pennsylvania[edit]

The article on ELAM is long, but interesting and contains many details. However, I was looking for some details about ELAM, PENNSYLVANIA. The Internet connections I tried were of no help and I've just been going 'round in circles, so to speak, trying to find info on the demographics and geographics of this small town in PA, USA. Do you have any suggestions? Thank you. Elteral3 (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to try the Concord Township Historical Society at:

610-459-8911 or 610-459-8556

P.O. Box 152, Concordville, PA 19331

Contact: Virginia DeNenno, President

E-Mail: crdtwp@twp.concord.pa.us -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Census entry for the town? That'll give you the demographics. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Guaraní people and the Jesuit Reductions PRIMARY SOURCE[edit]

Hi, can anyone find primary source documents with different Points of View pertaining to the Guarani War. By POV, I mean different perspectives of the conflict, probably one with bias for the Guaraní, and one with bias for the Spanish and Portuguese authorities. If possible, it would be best if these documents were in English rather than Spanish or Portuguese. Thanks. 98.199.150.222 (talk) 02:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After googling: See The Guarani under Spanish Rule in the Rio de la Plata. By Barbara Ganson (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2003. xii plus 290 pp. $65.00).

Online under http://books.google.com, but far from complete. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 03:44, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

W. German coins: just for W. Germany or for all of post 1990 Germany?[edit]

Hello all,

Since the early 1990's I have been a coin collector. Over the last few months I've been trying to index and label my collection. Among that is a few West German coins (an example of a piece is here). All of the German coins in my collection were made in the 60's and 70's - years before East and West reunited. My question is then are coins made by West Germany before 1990 considered to be coinage for all of Germany after 1990 to 2002 (when the Euro replaced the Mark)? Because of this, I can't decide to label my German coins as Germany or West Germany. 65.184.40.8 (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the articles in the German WP, the Mark (of the GDR / German Democratic Republic / East Germany) was legal tender until 30.06.1990 when the (West) German Mark became the currency in the then GDR on 01.07.1990. The exchange rate was deemed to be 1:1 and 2:1, depending on amount exchanged and the age of the citizen. Wages and prices were converted at par. Of course, this rate was far above the real rate and is still a matter of controversy.

The GDR ceased to exist on 03.10.1990 when it was united with the FRG / Federal Republic of Germany. The Euro was introduced on 01.01.2002 and replaced the German Mark.

See East German Mark and Deutsche Mark in the en.Wikipedia. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 05:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The simple answer is that there never was such a thing as "West Germany"; that was just a convenient nickname used for the Federal Republic of Germany at the time when "East Germany" also existed. For that matter, there wasn't an East Germany either; its real name was the German Democratic Republic, but people outside the Communist world avoided using that name on the grounds because it was not only long, but misleading.

When the country unified, the mechanism was that the Democratic Republic was dissolved and its member states were admitted as new states of the Federal Republic. So today's unified Germany is the same entity that was once known as West Germany, and naturally it kept using the same money (until the euro replaced it).

--Anonymous, 06:06 UTC, December 31, 2007.

In short, if you label your coins "Federal Republic of Germany", you can in good conscience place the Marks from before 1990 and those minted after the unification of Germany in the same category. Skarioffszky (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is all economic regulation "socialism"?[edit]

As part of the economics wikiproject, I've been trying to clean up Criticisms of Socialism, which is pretty bad. One place I wanted to start was by distinguishing "Socialism" the ideology and economic system from "Nationalization." The article and the main article on Socialism makes no distinction and it's an important distinction because economists are critical of the ideology & economic system of Socialism, but aren't inherently opposed to the socialization of certain industries, such as healthcare, utilities, infrastructure, etc.. In fact, there seems to be a fair amount of support for such. In other words, criticism of Socialism as an economic system involving heavy nationalization needs to be distinguished from selective nationalization in Capitalist economies, which has broad support.

The question is: Do you think this is a meaningful distinction to warrant disambiguating Socialism from Nationalization (aka "socialization")? Do you consider public ownership of industries to be inherently "socialism" or is that just a POV term against public enterprise and regulation? Zenwhat (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The word socialism is used in several different ways. It is not a term with a single, universally accepted meaning. Certainly nationalization is a word with a clearer meaning. Nationalization is not the same thing as socialism. You will find some hardline economic liberals (known as "fiscal conservatives" in the United States) who describe any government regulation or involvement in the economy that they disapprove—such as nationalization—as "socialism", but in this case, socialism is a not very meaningful word used as a term of abuse reflecting a certain POV. (For example, these ideologues almost universally support the government's issuance of currency or laws mandating corporate personhood, both of which are cases of government involvement in the economy.) I assume that you are aware that we already have an article on Nationalization. I do not see a need for a disambiguation page linking it to Socialism, any more than I see a need for a disambiguation page linking, say, Central bank and Socialism. Marco polo (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was plenty of economic regulation in the Middle Ages, without any particular "socialist" ideology in the modern sense. Protecting private economic interests is economic regulation, and every tariff on imports is also economic regulation of a sort... AnonMoos (talk) 16:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Bunce - At the Battle of Trafalgar[edit]

I am researching my family tree and know that a William Bunce (1750-1832) served on HMS Victory with Admiral Nelson and fought at the Battle of Trafalgar. He died in Stoke Demerell, Devon, close to the Naval town of Devonport and he even appears in the famous death scene picture of Nelson.

My maiden name is Bunce and I have previously ascertained that we have had a William Bunce (1784-1830) in our family - he died at Chalgrove, Oxon. Through my research I have since rectified a misconception that the two men were one and the same. What I would like to do now is find out whether or not these two men were related, one being the father of the other perhaps? The first censors available on-line was 1841, by which time both men were dead thus preventing me from checking out their particular details.

Can anyone please tell me (a) the best way to check whether or not these two men are related and (b) where both men were born. Also, are there any ancestors of either William Bunce in the Plymouth or Oxfordshire areas that might be able to swap family information with me. Thank you.

Betty Matthews: <email address removed to forestall spambots and such> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adscm (talk • contribs) 18:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might try consulting a genealogy website, such as this one. Here is a forum devoted to Bunce family genealogy. Many, though not all, of the participants are American, but it is possible that your ancestor has American descendants who know more about him. They might also be able to offer research tips. Here is another page of Bunce resources. It is unfortunately not likely that you will find others with information on Bunce genealogy on a Wikipedia reference desk. Marco polo (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try [1]. - CarbonLifeForm (talk) 20:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Benazir Bhutto's manner of death[edit]

I've seen a LOT of discussion in the news (specifically on CNN.com) over the last few days over the specifics as to exactly HOW Bhutto died (gunshot, shrapnel, falling, etc.), with discussion over whether there should be a post-mortem autopsy or not. I'm not opposed to anybody finding out or wanting to find out, I just don't understand why this particular question is front page news, even more front page than discussions as to who is to blame for the fatal attack. What are the stakes? Why is this top news? Does it matter? Is this just a way to "keep the story" alive, or does it have real implications? --67.180.134.53 (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume that Jesus had died from a heart failure on his way to Golgatha. What are the stakes? Why is this top news? Does it matter?

I guess, in the short run it may not have mattered. In the long run, the Man would have been forgotten or would have been seen as a charismatic preacher of but temporary importance.

We would live in an entirely different world.

And so will the Pakistanis, depending on the answers. And if a country with a stack of nuclear weapons sinks into civil war, you may know, what the stakes are. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, sorry, don't get it. Obviously she was assassinated—does it matter exactly what led to the death itself? If so, why? Obviously I'm not asking about the import of the assassination itself; I'm asking why it matters exactly what about it killed her. If Jesus had been killed on the electric chair presumably Christians would wear little lightning bolts around their necks—the specific way he died is not important, it's the other circumstances. --67.180.134.53 (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People want to know what Musharraf's role in the killing was. While an autopsy will not directly reveal that, the absence of an established cause of death allows the authorities a wider range of explanations. It may also thwart the possibility of establishing proof based on material evidence should it come to criminal prosecution of possibly responsible people. --Lambiam 23:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, but how? I mean, a guy shot at her, and another guy set off a bomb. That seems well established. Why does knowing which of those two things actually killed her change anything? --67.180.134.53 (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that I'm not exaggerating the focus of this given by CNN.com, here's the current lead story plug as I write this: Videos, photos and witnesses give clues to what happened in the chaotic seconds around the assassination attack on Benazir Bhutto. But still there are disputes over what killed her. Watch the video, see the photos, read the accounts and see if you can decide. Other video stories are things like Was Bhutto shot? They don't mean was she shot at, which is already well established. They mean, "did the guy shooting at her kill her, or did she die from the explosion?" But frankly I don't see why that question is the really important one to be asking, and none of the articles say anything about the stakes involved (e.g. "if she died by the explosion, it would imply X"). --67.180.134.53 (talk) 23:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The seems to be some suggestion depending on how she died she may or may not be seen as a matyr. Personally while far from an expert on Islam or the views of her supporters I'm unconvinced by what I've read so far and don't think it makes one bit of difference. The government statement which some people claimed was 'downplaying' her 'matyrness' didn't seem to be doing that to me. They claimed (last I read) that the shockwave knocked her into the window. I don't see how anyone can resonably call this anything other then an assasination. It was surely not an accident. Perhaps if she had just hit her head while ducking you could say this was a freakish accident due to the assassination attempt (although I think it is rather unlikely someone would hit their head hard enough to kill them while ducking) but if the bomb directly caused her death, whether due to sharpnel or the shockwave then this can't be an accident. Personally it seems to me this has just sunk in chaos with the government saying one thing (which I suspect is mostly true) and her supporters saying another thing just because they despise the goverment. In terms of the autopsy did the family ever say they wanted an autopsy? It is fairly normal practice that Muslims believe the dead should be buried as soon as possible and for this reason autopsies are sometimes avoided. In terms of why CNN etc are making so much of a fuss about this well the media does like to keep stories alive when they can IMHO. And the American media in particular seem to like 'juicy' stories about bad things people in developing countries are supposedly doing, even better when it was by someone they don't like so much (Musharaf) against someone they like more (Benazir Bhutto) Nil Einne (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]