Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

April 1

Discontinued Action

What does it mean when someone say's they have discontinues action without cost and without prejudice? thanks tre

Although the context of your question is not without ambiguity, it is most likely a reference to legal pleadings under the rules of civil procedure in common law jurisdictions where a plaintiff (or a defendant with a counter-claim) wishes to discontinue a claim against the opposing party, while still preserving other claims. (see e.g., http://www.dca.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part38.htm#rule38_6), (see also, Cause of action, counterclaim). dr.ef.tymac 03:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "without costs" likely means that the party who discontinued the action is not intending to pay anything to compensate the other party for legal fees and expenses. The phrase "without prejudice" likely means that the party who discontinued the action is reserving his/her/its right to reinstitute the claim in future (if, for example, new evidence should arise). --Mathew5000 03:55, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Aircraft carrier design

Hi all. I've noticed that on every picture I've seen of aircraft carriers, the "island" is on the right side of the ship. Is there any reason for that? Are there any carriers with it on the left? - Akamad 03:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Its on the left when the ship is traveling in reverse. 71.100.167.232 03:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, here is the wartime Japanese carrier Akagi with the tower on the left. Some others were complete flattops. The Akagi was lost at the Battle of Midway in 1942. Clio the Muse 03:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Design standards being what they are, it is probably best not to be a free thinker where aircraft are concerned on the high seas. Pilots and crew would be used to a style, and mass production results in an arbitrary choice. Australians and UK drive on the left hand side of the road and there is anecdotal evidence that this causes accidents both with people from overseas driving here, and people here driving overseas. However, I'm confident there is no hard and fast rule. DDB 05:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I was assuming too. THanks all. - Akamad 11:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this information, but the Wikipedia article on flight decks suggests that there is a practical reason for the location of the "island," which is related to the behavior of early aircraft on takeoff. Carom 16:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's close but it was landing, not takeoff, that determined that the island end up to starboard. Taking off with early planes didn't need a full-length flight deck, so that a conventional superstructure worked ok, so long as you didn't want planes to land back on board the carrier.

David Brown's The Grand Fleet (pp. 116–120) covers the evolution, and I'm pretty sure Norman Friedman's USNI press books on aircraft carriers go over the same ground. Once aircraft carrying ships got a full length flight-deck, the first idea was an island port and starboard with a platform connecting them above the flight deck, but wind tunnel tests showed this was bad, and the first aircraft carrier - HMS Argus (I49) - had a flush deck. However, experience showed that this was not ideal either: an island gave pilots a target to aim at when landing on. For HMS Furious (47) some ideas were mocked up and Brown gives pictures of the models on pp. 118–119. Two islands again - no good - then island to port - much better - and finally island to starboard - best, because aeroplanes with rotary engines could turn better to port to avoid the island and land on the deck than to starboard.

For inline and radial engines it probably didn't make that much difference either way, but once the first couple of aircraft carriers had been built with starboard islands, most people stuck with them. Quite a few escort carriers were built flush-decked during WWII, but only one fleet carrier - the Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi - was built with the island to port. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nice info! (I couldn't convince you to update the article accordingly, could I?) Carom 21:21, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed (with Carom). Good and interesting info. THanks for answering my question with excellent detail. - Akamad 12:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Literary Influences

Does anyone know where I can find a chart or a diagram of the writers in the literary canon and how they were all influenced by one another, and the various influences they exerted in turn? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.13.4.53 (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

In which literary canon? My first reaction to this is that it might just be a little too ambitious, as any such chart would be hoplessly complex. Would it be possible to narrow your quest down? Clio the Muse 03:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It is worth noting that the notion of what constitutes "the literary canon" is constantly changing, as new books are written and old ones fall into obscurity. Try reading literary criticism from more than two generations ago and you'll find it peppered with names like Mallarmé, Hugo, Holderlin, etc. Great writers, but very rarely read. The entire idea of a "canon" depends on relevance, and stuff is always losing relevance. I see no reason that a literary flowchart could not be created, although it would itself be a literary work and heavily subjective. I once saw a flowchart tracking the progress of rock and roll from artist to artist, and even though its scope was fairly limited, it was huge and full of omissions. Bhumiya (said/done) 06:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

So, Victor Hugo is not much read, Bhumiya? Well, I've not long finished reading Les Miserables hard on the heels of Notre-Dame de Paris! They are both highly engaging, but I have to say that I would not go so far as to describe Hugo as a 'great writer.' A personal assessment, of course. Incidentally, for those who take an interest in these things, the Wikipedia page on Notre-Dame de Paris, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, if you prefer, says that the novel is set 'in about 1485'. It is not. It is set precisely in 1482, during the reign of the 'spider king', Louis XI, who died in 1483. Please forgive this pedantic aside, everyone, which takes us too far away from the point of the question. Clio the Muse 08:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think most literary critics would acknowledge his greatness, but no, I don't think he's widely read at all these days. His work is overshadowed by its Disneyfied spin-offs. Perhaps I shouldn't put him in the same class of obscurity as Mallarmé and Holderlin. A better example might be Proust. Even though he's a more recent vintage than Hugo, there are many bookstores that don't carry his work at all (my college bookstore shamefully among them). Dan Brown, on the other hand - you can find about fifty pounds of his scribblings in any bookstore anywhere in the world. Bhumiya (said/done) 18:40, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Life is certainly too short for Proust and far too long for Dan Brown and similar mush. And please always follow your own instincts in these matters, never the canon passed down from Olympus by literary critics. Clio the Muse 19:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

(*cough", *splutter*). :) JackofOz 22:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Literature is discussed and examined in Universities. However, the task of assigning values and attributing influence is largely unpopular as an academic pursuit as, by and large, academic attention is focused on the here and now, the cutting edge.

Jane Austen was writing from a time when the novel was, ahem, new. The idea of reading for pleasure is related to the Gutenberg Printing Press and the rise of middle class. Rosemary Day, in her book 'Literacy from the 1500's' points out that functional literacy has evolved. It was considered literate in Elizabethan times to be able to write (yet not read!), but as professional guilds developed, being able to read and write became important.

So before education became areligious, writing was trade related, or for religious instruction. Court intrigue and letter writing flowers with education, and the middle class required insight into the unobtainable upper class. Austen, Bronte sisters, Taylor sisters, Chaucer, Swift and Samuel Johnson bootstrapped the 'novel' into its modern appearance. I've not compiled an exhaustive list, and I've focused on English. A learned person in this area might give a much better answer ;) DDB 10:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Chaucer is a contributer to the shape of the modern novel, DDB? I would describe that as an unusual contention, to say the very least, but that word does not seem to serve! You might as easily include Ovid in your succession. In truth, Chaucer belongs to an ancient tradition of narrative poetry, which predates the novel by centuries. Clio the Muse 10:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Very true Clio, I stand corrected. I sidestepped the poets, although, clearly, poetry and prose are interrelated. The unfinished novel of 'The Canterbury Tales' is seldom mentioned anywhere ;) DDB 10:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Environmental Psychology

DAK Kopec has been very active in bringing Environmental Psychology to design feilds. Recently his book Environmental Psychology for Design (published by Fairchild Books) won the ASID's (American Society of Interior Design) Prestigous Joel Polski prize, but he is not mentioned in your discussions and prominent people of Environmental Psychology.

We appear to have no article for DAK Kopec; generally, if someone is notable enough to go in a list of notable people in a given field, they should probably have their own page first. IF you create that page, and the article passes the notability standard -- that is, if the article can cite effectively, and is not deleted -- add that name to the Environmental Psychology list would seem a fair next step. Doing it the other way (putting his name in the list when he has no page) too often results in deletion, since no one will be able to figure out who the guy is and why he should be on that list. Go make the article, and have fun! Jfarber 13:33, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Franklin Furnace

Thank you i din't understanf i thought it ment that he collected minerals or something thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.114.9.197 (talk) 15:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Is there a question hiding in there somewhere? According to the article, Franklin Furnace is a mineral location, not a person.  --Lambiam^Talk 18:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It's another joke, Lambiam, best jettisoned or ignored. Clio the Muse 18:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Copyrights and patents

Why can't patents be handled the same way as copyrights in that you automatically have the right and only have to file if someone abuses it? In other words if I invent something or make an improvement and publish it or manufacture and distribute it why can't a simple notice such as "Patented by" just as the notice "Copyrighted by" is added to documents even though filing has not occurred instead of forfeiting my right to a patent due to lack of funds necessary to hire a patent attorney and apply for a patent ahead of time? Nebraska bob 18:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Several answers (and remember that the details vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction anyway):

1. Most obviously, the content of any copyright material is the material itself, so it is in principle easy to determine whether or not something infringes it. Determining exactly what has been patented, and what infringes it or doesn't, is much more difficult (and a big part of why you might employ a patent agent or specialising lawyer).
2. More subtly (see the paragraph starting 'Second' of Patent#Rationale, the original reason for governments to grant patents was to ensure that they got published for the public good: the exclusive right (for a limited period) was the reward for publishing.

--ColinFine 19:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

There's the choice between filing for a patent, or trying to keep a "trade secret". I don't think that automatic patents would be very workable, or would be good public policy even if they were workable. AnonMoos 22:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Patents are monopolies exchanged for disclosure of invention (at least, they are by the late 19th century in the USA — before that they are a bit different, and elsewhere there are different philosophies of patenting). The registering of the patent does two things: it gives some sanction to the specifics of the claims of the patents (something which could not be possible if they were not registered ahead of time — they would provide no security at all for other inventors if it was something which was only litigated in court), and it facilitates the act of disclosure. Additionally, the standards for a patent are much more specific than for a copyright — it is far easier to presume what is copyrighted and why than it is for patents. A layperson can usually, with five minutes of explanation, understand what of their work is copyrightable. People spend years becoming good patent lawyers, the people who draft most patents to be powerful and legal. --24.147.86.187 01:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Also, automatic patents would mean you could get a patent automatically even though someone else already invented it. The whole protection a patent offers the inventor wouldn't work anymore. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Long pinky nail

I have often seen men from East Asia who have grown their pinky finger nail very long. What is the meaning of the long nail? I have heard that it symbolizes wealth or good luck, but I haven't been able to verify this. -PullUpYourSocks 20:07, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

How about reading the article Nail (anatomy)? There a small section about it. Flamarande 20:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

It may signify that they are wealthy enough to not have to do manual labour. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Just as an aside, it was a custom of Louis XIV's that to be admitted to his rooms, you weren't to be so vulgar as to knock, but scratched at the door with a fingernail. His courtiers grew long pinky nails for the purpose. Adambrowne666 03:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Where I am from the pinky nail is grown as a tool to help separate the seeds from the weed in Cannabis --Jcw69 05:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Lebanon

Hello there :)

Simple question that I'm having trouble finding. What percent of Lebanese citizens live in urban, suburban, and rural areas?

For instance. 50% live in rrban, 25% in suburban, and 25% in rural.

Thanks for your time and help -Lost Student —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.156.123.136 (talk) 21:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

The distinction between urban and suburban areas is arbitrary and not often made for statistical or analytical purposes outside of the United States and perhaps Canada. In most other countries all built-up areas, including what might be called suburban areas in the United States, are considered urban, whether or not they are within the municipal borders of a "central city". According to Encarta, Lebanon's population is 88% urban and 12% rural. Marco polo 22:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

(After EC) You will find some fairly comprehensive statistics on Lebanon, and not just on population distribution, here[1]. As you will see, in the year 2000 90% of the people of Lebanon were living in urban areas. There is no further breakdown, though, into urban and suburban patterns of distribution, and I am not really sure how meaningful such information would be. Clio the Muse 22:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

April 2

Being Sworn in to Testify before Congress or in a Court of Law

I want to know if there are consequences for saying *no* when being sworn in before Congress or in a court of law? I know that people can invoke the 5th Amendment when testifying, but what happens when the *Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?* phrase is answered with *no or I don't* instead of *yes or I do*?

For instance, people supoenaed before Congress are sworn in, so what would happen if the person said no they would not swear to tell the truth? Thanks for any information.```` —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StrawberryMarshmallow (talk • contribs) 00:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Have a look at Contempt of court. Clio the Muse 00:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that very quick response :) ! I figured that a Court of Law would probably have something like that. But, it doesn't mention Congress, so I am still wondering what Congress could or would do to someone. if they could imprison or fine them? ````

I would imagine the procedure would be just the same if an individual was bold enough to make such a rash declaration before Congress, as I assume those who lie under oath would be charged with Perjury. Clio the Muse 00:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Try Contempt of Congress (it was below the article 'Contempt of court'). Flamarande 00:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) There's a difference between refusing to answer a question under the 5th Amendment, and speaking but telling a lie. (2) Clio, if a witness said they would refuse to tell the truth, it would not get to the point of invoking the laws against perjury because the court would not permit any questions to be asked of the witness until and unless they had agreed to tell the truth. Prior to that, a continued refusal to swear to tell the truth would be a matter of contempt. JackofOz 01:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that, Jack; thanks. I was merely making a general comparison between the powers of a court and the powers of Congress. Refusing to swear would be contempt, just as subsequent lying under oath would be perjury. Clio the Muse 01:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

a continued refusal to swear to tell the truth would be a matter of contempt ... although not necessarily, if the party simply chose to remain silent (not answering yes or no) and the tribunal did not have personal jurisdiction over the party, there would be no authority upon which to base such a judgment, and it could be argued the party never waived personal jurisdiction by availing itself of the authority of the tribunal to begin with. dr.ef.tymac 02:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As an aside, I thought I should mention that I've read that (probably in the US) when asked to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god - or if you are asked to put your hand on the bible - apparently you can decline. You must inform the judge that you do not believe in god, and then the question will be rephrased in such a way that 'god' is replaced with something more suitable - I'm not sure what though, such as maybe "binding on your conscious". But I thought about this, and given that the majority of people believe in god, and, certainly in a jury the majority of people would believe in god, if you were on trial I don't see how this would help you. Rfwoolf 17:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please have a look at Affirmation. Everyone has the right to swear to tell the truth according to their conscience, and not just in the United States. I really cannot say, as you clearly can, that the 'majority of people', in or out of a jury, believe in God, because I have no way of testing this proposition. What I can say is that to prejudge someone simply because they choose to affirm, rather than take an oath, would seem to undermine the whole concept of fairness and justice. The truth is the truth, and it matters not if you are a Christian, a Muslim or an Atheist. Clio the Muse 17:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If an atheist were on trial, I'm sure the defense attorney would make sure to ask any potential jurors during the jury-selection process what they think about atheists. Anyone who would admit to hating atheists presumably would be excluded from the jury. In Glassroth v. Moore, attorneys successfully argued that the presence of a giant Ten Commandments monument in a courtroom would interfere with clients' right to a fair trial, among other things. And as I'm sure you know, the standard oath specifies the capital-G God, not any lower-case "god." -- Mwalcoff 17:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

The right to substitute an affirmation instead of an oath was not given to make atheists happy, but rather for those people (quakers in particular) who do not ever swear to god for religious reasons. -Czmtzc 18:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Still this right also applies to atheists and everybody else, nuff' said. Flamarande 19:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"Middle-earth" hairstyles

I've noticed when watching some movies that some of the men who have fairly long hair have a hairstyle that looks like in this picture of Aragorn: [2] — the hair seems to bunch together, more or less the opposite of what would happen if they combed their hair. To get a hairstyle like this, is it simply a matter of having long enough hair and never combing it, or do they put something in it, like mousse? If I just leave my hair alone it all tends to fall in line and looks more or less like I combed it, but my hair is only two or three inches long so maybe that's part of the reason. Philbert^2.71828 01:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like mousse, or basically any kind of gel. See all those gel and hairstyle products they sell in just about every store, that people buy expecting them to do something like spikes or fancy stuff - but all they ever do is coat them in crap and do nothing at all? Well all those products are perfect for long people whose hair just flops down like a mop that just needs a modicum of texture

I would try mousse, but if you look at the picture you've shown, he has some definition in the front fringe - where the hair has been separated into thing strands and it curls just slightly - you might have to specifically try do that with mousse, and if you find it doesn't work then go for any crap gel so long as it doesn't look like it will damage your hair Rfwoolf 09:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It isn't a look for everyday, but you can also get a stuck-together look by spraying your hair with salt water and then crunching it with your hands as it dries. This will give you "beach hair." But I agree Aragorn's 'do in the picture was probably done with mousse or a perhaps a "hair wax"-type pomade. Here's an example of something that looks like what I'm thinking of-- the idea is to find a product that lets you give yourself "bed head." Crypticfirefly 01:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you don't wash your hair, it'll bunch up like that from all the natural oils and such. Vranak

Help!

I need help with a paper I need to write. Can you tell me all about the Battle of Antietam and Battle of Petersburg with Amrose Powell Hill in it?

Have you read the Battle of Antietam, the Battle of Petersburg and A. P. Hill? Is there something more specific I can assist you with? Clio the Muse 01:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Radioactive waste

Toronto's media is reporting that yesterday night, over 40 Tetrabecquerel of radium was accidentally leaked into the environment, half of which entered the water supply. Any suggestions on what to do next? Please, I don't want to get cancer from drinking radioactive water!

I am now warning my Toronto friends: DO NOT DRINK TAP WATER UNTIL YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY SURE IT IS SAFE!!!!!! --Bowlhover 04:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Where did you hear that? Google isn't helping me out. :S Splintercellguy 04:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It was on BBC all day today. Pretty big news; you'll probably hear about it soon, too. --Bowlhover 04:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing on bbc.co.uk and it seems unlikely the BBC would report this before any Canadian media. If this is an April Fool's joke, it's not funny. --Mathew5000 04:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It probably is.... But then again, who cares about Canada? j/k --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say BBC reported it first. I said I saw it being reported there first; don't ask me why. (By the way. it's April 2 right now in Toronto.) --~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bowlhover (talk • contribs) 04:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

I can't find any mention of this on Google News or elsewhere on the Internet. The closest I can find is discussion of the possibility of burying radioactive waste below Toronto. Could you have been listening to a report on this and misunderstood? — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Look on the bright side. You could save on electricity if you glowed in the dark. Clarityfiend 06:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Nothing at the Toronto Star http://www.thestar.com/, Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/, Google News http://news.google.com/, or BBC. Wisconsin's got radium problems (I see in old news articles), but not Toronto. Shenme 06:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, does April Fool's come late to Canada? Or did they just wake up after sleeping all day? Shenme 06:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

aheh. Want to check they're other 'contributions'? Shenme 06:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand threat from radiation is overstated. Chernobyl deaths were from the short term exposure and Hiroshima and Nagasaki never eventuated with the cancer fears. People have lived among radioactive things since the dawn of time, even relying on some. DDB 12:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Threat from radiation is not overstated; perception of risk of radiation often is. You can and will suffer consequences if you are exposed to high levels of radioactivity in a short amount of time or low levels of radioactivity over a long amount of time. It is not clear about the long-term effects of Chernobyl (the only deaths that have been recognized by the WHO as directly related are the fire-fighting deaths, but there have been all sorts of spikes in cancer rates in affected countries), and as for Hiroshima and Nagasaki there have indeed been extremely high cancer rates in survivors. All of that being said, some things — like nuclear reactors — are not nearly as dangerous as they are popularly perceived. I'd rather live next to a reactor than a large dam, and surely than a coal factory. --24.147.86.187 22:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not an April Fools joke

OH NOEZ! Don't worry, it's sulfuric acid (not much of a carcinogen) and the spill is in northern Ontario (Englehart). You should be fine in TO, but I wouldn't advise drinking Toronto water to begin with. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

anarchist publication: Black Rose

How cn I access the Back Rose publication Black Rose. Should be online my Boston friend tells me69.150.3.210 04:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The only reference I can find to Black Rose and Boston is to an anarchist magazine published there in the 1980s, which appears now to be defunct. There is a link here for Black Rose Books, which I think might be based in Canada [3]. Clio the Muse 05:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This may be what you are looking for. I found it through a link at our substub article, Black Rose (magazine). --Cam 05:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Company Registration

Hello - Are companies/corporations in the US required to be registered by a National Registry? Is there a database available to search for information about USA companies/corporations? (Similar to ASIC in Australia and Company House in the UK.) Thanks140.168.69.166 06:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S. corporations are generally incorporated under the laws of some particular state. The federal government therefore would not have a central registry or searchable database. Most of the public companies in the US are incorporated under the laws of Delaware, according to the Wikipedia article Corporations law#Corporate law in the United States. --Mathew5000 07:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Who has more spent on them, men or women?

Who has more money spent on them, men or women? I believe this figure is called consumption in economics. I would like to know the figure in as many countries as possible, but I am most interested in the United States. Qvkfgmjqy 07:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you refering to personal or to business spending? Nebraska bob 08:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I understand the question, but I think I mean personal. Basically the combination of food, housing, transportation, entertainment, education, clothes, etc. Things of that nature. Qvkfgmjqy 09:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you refering to 'who has more spent on them' - spent on them by SOMEONE ELSE, spent on them by THEMSELVES, spent on them by marketers and advertising companies? I think you are asking whether women spend more money on themselves or men? Rfwoolf 09:44, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean the combination of what they spend on themselves and what other people spend on them. I'm pretty sure I mean Consumption (economics). So who consumes more? So not advertising, unless the advertising actually involves buying them goods (such as a bank sending a gift basket of apples, and a woman actually eating them). Qvkfgmjqy 09:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Conversely then do you want to know which gender is more thrifty in terms of consumption regardless of whether they pay for it themselves or whether it is paid for by someone else? Nebraska bob 11:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think they want to know which gender is most often (proportionally) the beneficiary of consumption. I suspect the poster is more interested in non-vital expenditure (so excluding medical care/education/policing etc). and more on high-street style consumption. In this instance we could look for spending-figures of men/women on the high-street and also look at factoring in present/gift purchase habits between the genders. I don't really know where to start, save to say root about in Wikipedia for articles on gender specific economics and hope some of the links/articles help. Good luck...oh and if you find out post it here as would be interesting to know. ny156uk 16:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The list given by the questioner mentions education specifically, and the further wording suggests that the notion of consumption is meant to be inclusive rather than focus on "high-street style" consumption. A difficulty with the question is that a substantial part of consumptive expenses (housing, insurance, vacationing) tend to be family expenses and hard to ascribe to a specific gender. Most of the statistics gathered on consumptive spending is "per household". If, for the purpose of ascription, we split family-oriented expenses fifty-fifty, in the final answer including strictly personal consumption the totals of men and women must be close, and it may be the case that not enough reliable data is available to declare a winner.  --Lambiam^Talk 19:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Im looking for all consumption, including education and health care. I know that health care and education are two areas where there IS a disparity and it favors women. Women have something like twice as much spent on health care every year and women, on average, have more years of education of men. But I want numbers, does anyone have links to them? Qvkfgmjqy 23:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

...also cosmetics and fashions and bridal showers and weddings, only to mention a few. Nebraska bob 23:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

A question to challenge your intelligence quotient - was it the original plan...?

Knowing how hard (in the past) it has been for women to be elected to public office (compared to men) and the desire of past presidents to refill the office of the presidency with a member of their own family could was Bill's affair with Jessica have actually been a part of the plan? (What plan you ask? To get Hillary elected the first female President of the United States.) Nebraska bob 08:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Please don't use the refdesk as a message board. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about sympathy campaign contributions and the $26 million Hilary has raised in record time. -- Nebraska bob 11:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there a "Monica" involved too? Skarioffszky 10:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Monica too. Nebraska bob 11:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question: yes, it could have been. In the future, please pose questions on probability theory here. dr.ef.tymac 13:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

See also (WP:NOT#CBALL). dr.ef.tymac 17:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In this case you are not being asked to predict the future but to consider the implication of known facts. I might well have asked if the RMS Lusitania was sunk by ammunition it was carrying or by a German torpedo. I agree that it could have been the original plan and have no problem with rephrasing the question to ask if it was. Nebraska bob 20:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying what "the plan" is, scoundrel. How would it help Hillary's campaign in any way to suggest that her marriage is on the rocks? And what Jessica are you talking about? Jessica Valenti? There was no affair there. Stop using the refdesk as a soapbox/political forum/teenage girl diary. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps bob meant Gennifer. —Tamfang 01:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Bret Harte accuracy

How accurately did Bret Harte portray western gold rush period mining towns in his stories, such as the "Outcasts of Poker Flat," and are there any historical example of a town working in this way? DebateKid 18:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia page on Bret Harte, as there is on The Outcasts of Poker Flat , though they are not among the best, if I am honest. Brete Harte is a highly entertaining writer, and his stories attempt to be true to their subject. Who could not fall in love with the unaffected charm of tales like Luck of the Roaring Camp? But, no, I do not think gold camps would ever have worked in the idealised way described by Harte, nor do I think people ever spoke in the fashion he describes. The writing is attractive, but ultimtely highly artificial. You will find a lot more information in The Life of Bret Harte With Some Account of the California Pioneers by H. C. Merwin, and Bret Harte: Prince and Pauper by A. Nissen. Clio the Muse 18:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Our article states that even Twain gave light respect to Luck of the Roaring Camp, one who was otherwise not much of a fan.[4] The Columbia Companion to the Twentieth-Century American Short Story compares Harte's California to "Irving's Hudson Valley, Hawthorne's colonial Massachusetts, and Poe's mid-region of weird" (though they probably meant to say 'Wier') a "a geographic anachronism" and says Harte was "only superficially realistic" in his fiction.—eric 18:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Eric, you disappoint me! I thought 'mid-region of weird' was just so poetically apt for dear old Edgar Allan's realm of the imagination. For me his country, from this point forward and always, will be the said Mid-Region of Weird, where the skies will always be ashen and sober. And if I ever come to write Poe's biography that will be the title I will use! Clio the Muse 10:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

When you do, please explain your title for such dullards as could cut-and-paste the above w/o noticing.—eric 18:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean, as to the justice system and morality level, was he accurate? And thank you for the answers you have already given. DebateKid 18:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No, not really. Life was far, far rougher, and morality and justice were basic, to say the least. But have a look at the books I have recommended. But you might also consider Roaring Camp: the Social World of the California Gold Rush by Susan Lee Johnson. Clio the Muse 19:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both very much. I wouldn't have found those books without that help! DebateKid 19:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm pleased to have been of some help in your quest. And always remember Never a lip is curved with pain that can't be kissed into smiles again! Clio the Muse 19:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Formal dress

Why does men's formal dress cover everything from the neck down, except for the hands, while women's formal dress only covers the torso from halfway across the breasts down, and sort-of tries to cover the legs? Not that I have a problem with it, but what do women themselves think of it? JIP | Talk 19:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what the point of your question is. I have a short cocktail dress and a longer evening dress, which I wear with a bolero jacket, and they both suit me fine! Incidentally, I always dress to please myself. Clio the Muse 19:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

(written during edit conflict) I would note that this difference applies not only to formal dress but to casual dress as well, particularly in summer. Men's casual summer dress, at least in the United States, is very baggy, and shorts tend to extend past the knees. Women's summer dress tends to hug the body and to expose a lot more skin. I suspect that despite the efforts of feminists, in Western culture women are valued much more than men as sexual objects. No one is supposed to be particularly interested in men's bodies. Marco polo 19:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am! Sorry, Marco, please forgive the levity. Clio the Muse 19:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Historically formal wear for women was much more 'covering'. Showing 'ankles' was considered 'exciting' I understand. Additionally historically the male-body (specifically young males) was considered by many cultures to be pure 'beauty'. I suspect that men's formal wear is mostly designed through "work" based styles and ladies formal wear is perhaps more likely to be based on events/evening wear - which is perhaps a reasoning behind women's wear being more revealing. Add in the sex/attraction angle and you have a number of reasons why clothes for men and women alter. All this is from a man's perspective and also based on very average (at best) knowledge of history. ny156uk 19:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There are more than 3000000000 women, and it is plausible that they have varying thoughts about what you describe, including the accuracy and relevance of the description. Until someone goes through the effort of gathering reliable statistics on the issue, all opinions ventured here on what "women themselves" think of it will be just random personal opinions or baseless guesses. For many men, I'm really glad men's formal dress covers everything from the knees down.  --Lambiam^Talk 19:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Clio, I also happen to be more interested in men's bodies than women's. This is why I am keenly aware (and perhaps a bit peeved) that men's clothes are so much more concealing. Marco polo 20:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that frank admission, Marco! ♥ Clio the Muse 20:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Me too. Mmmmmmm ....  :) JackofOz 22:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent scientific research shows women dress to expose more skin when they are biologically ready to conceive. I read the report at www.livescience.com in 2006, but cannot locate it right now. DDB 20:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That would make sense looking at what happens to female body temperature during Ovulation. May I also suggest Peer pressure despite Clio's disclaimer that she does it only for herself. Nebraska bob 21:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Clio, I do believe peer pressure is a major factor. As an aging feminist, I am still addicted to fashion. I compete, if compete is really the right word, with other women. I note when they are fashionable and I am delighted when a fashionable woman praises my outfits. I praise their outfits. It is sort of a closed club. The cliche is that women dress for other women and not for men. What would a man know about which color is in fashion or how hard it is to find a certain item? I would not want to repel a man but I feel Western women (the world I know) are more knowledgeable. The bolero sounds like a nice accent to your outfit.75Janice 22:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)75Janice 2 April 2007

Thanks, Janice! Clio the Muse 22:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

An old-fashioned Hyderabadi gentleman wearing an everyday Sherwani.
note exposed ankles & head, both of which would be covered on women in at least some of the traditional Muslim cultures where the Sherwani is considered male formal dress.

As always, I think it's important to note that the assumptions you make about comparative dress standards (men covered, women less so) are not true for all cultures. See, for example, the Kilt -- a fairly revealing formal dress garment for men, all told, and in a culture where for many years women would not have dressed in as revealing a manner. Or head off to the tiny island nation of Bermuda, where the formal dress standards for men allow for fairly short shorts worn with a jacket and tie. Or consider the Salwar kameez and Sherwani of India and Pakistan, cultures where the dress standard seems to be equally revealing for men and women...as long as those women are not scarved or veiled, in which case the men show more skin than women on both formal and many informal occasions. Examples abound; because plenty of cultures exist where men and women's dress standards to NOT end up revealing more for women, I would look to cultural influences, more than physical influences such as the need to keep cool as applied to bilogocal and physican differences, to explain this phenomenon. Jfarber 13:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's simple really. Women who've got something to show off will indeed show it off. Men's legs and chests are not classically considered aesthetically pleasing (probably because historically speaking, they're not). Vranak

Smallest country

What was(is) the smallest country that ever existed? was there a country that was smaller than the Vatican that once existed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.86.190 (talk) 19:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

I think you will be hard pressed to find any viable political unit smaller than the Vatican, which incidentally is a city-state rather than a country as such, a tiny remnant of the old Papal States. Clio the Muse 19:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This vague question has no true answer. First of all you must precisley define what you consider and accept as 'a country'. Is it an internationally recognized political entity (which is more or less the current official definition)? Is a small Indian tribe 'a country'? In more ancient times there were City-states and surely some of them were smaller than the Vatican. Further back before the appearance of cities and civilization there were small tribes, clans, families (whatever) who lived in caves or something similar. Under a certain POV these caves were 'countries'. One should not forget that if someone wants to measure a country one also has to define the borders and the souveran territory under its control. The Vatican has some enclaves inside Rome, and someone may want add the embassies, etc. to cut it short: If someone asks such questions he should be a bit more precise. To write that ever existed is simply too vague. Flamarande 20:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As is usually the case with questions about the smallest, or largest, or first, or other extremes, it depends on your working definition and assumptions. For instance, the micronation of Sealand is about 1000 times smaller than the Vatican, but it's not really recognized. Alternatively, the Sovereign Military Order of Malta claims sovereignty and has permanent observer status with the UN but has no territory. Obviously, if you consider that a country, it is currently the smallest country that has ever, or could ever, exist -- hinging, as noted initially, on the if. — Lomn 20:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Lomn has hit it on the head. For practical purposes, the smallest ever example of what we would consider to be a sovereign nation would probably some ancient city-state, of which there have been innumerable examples throughout history. I strongly doubt if it can be known with any certainty which of them was the smallest, because the smallest were probably the least important and the first to be forgotten. It's only recently that modern geography has rendered such trivia possible. Bhumiya (said/done) 20:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I should go ahead and make clear, however, that the Vatican is the smallest (near-)universally accepted "country" presently existing (see List of countries by area). — Lomn 20:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

On small states no longer existing, there is the page List of extinct states. For added fun, spend some hours browsing the links at List of states in the Holy Roman Empire! Pfly 20:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, Bhumiya, even the smallest of the ancient city-states would have to have been, well, a city. Strictly speaking the Vatican is not even that. It is simply that part of old Papal city of Rome, where the Basilica of St. Peter and the Palace of the Popes is located. Clio the Muse 20:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't or wasn't there an abandoned oil platform Mausell Sea Fort off the British coast that some guy Paddy Roy Bates inhabited and declared to be a sovereign state? In fact here it is: HM Fort Roughs, i.e., the Principality of Sealand. Nebraska bob 22:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure most of the abbeys at List of Imperial abbeys were smaller than the Vatican. Corvus cornix 02:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No city-state could exist without its food-growing countryside. All the early abbeys were endowed with villas from which they supported themselves. The size of the enceinte, the defensive walling, may give a misleading impression of constricted area. --Wetman 05:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Cosmic Visions

What is the psychological term for a person who becomes possessed by visions of the vastness of the world, or of the Self? This possession can extend to both material and immaterial spheres, as when a person is caught up in the terrors and the transports of the transpersonal psyche and continually enthralled by a sense of either wonder or fear, or both in turn. Herman Melville seems to have been particularly possessed by this daemon in all of its manifestations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.13.1.152 (talk) 22:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

What on earth does 'transports of the transpersonal psyche' mean? Is this some disembodied entity freewheeling through space on some cosmic scooter? Clio the Muse 00:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

HA, HA!! In other words, our numinous indescribable encounters with a being or with forces which transcend experience. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 161.13.1.152 (talk) 00:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Possibly this is outside the realm of modern, scientific psychology. It sounds as though you are referring to a mystical experience. Marco polo 01:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to paraphrase Hamlet (Act 1, Scene 5) and say "There are more things in heaven and earth, 161.13.1.152, than are dreamt of in your ... er, psychology". JackofOz 01:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

(Holding skull) "Alas, poor 161.13.1.152, I knew him well." StuRat 02:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Common misquotations aside, nice one, Stu. JackofOz 03:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said (Holding nonfunctional computer monitor) ? StuRat 02:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Existential depression is the feeling that, compared to the vastness of the universe and time, you are so insignificant as to be utterly meaningless. Is this close to what you are asking about ? StuRat 02:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a single term for such a person, but the state sounds something like Vision (religion), Ecstasy (emotion), and perhaps Sublime (philosophy). Being "possessed" implies something overwhelming or unresistable, which reminds me of Epilepsy, especially Temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE). Oliver Sacks has written about the idea that Fyodor Dostoevsky may have had temporal lobe epilepsy. Sacks' describes the condition as involving "intensely vivid dreams, seizurelike hallucinations, mystical illuminations and transports". The page Seizure types says "seizures centred on the temporal lobes are known to produce mystical or ecstatic experiences in some people." Migraines in some people are connected with Aura (symptom) "hallucinations" and, sometimes, religious visions. Sacks writes about the possibility of the visions of Hildegard of Bingen as being migrainous. The painter Giorgio de Chirico apparently experienced migraine auras with strong spiritual feelings, calling them "spiritual fevers". The chapter "The Landscape of His Dreams" in Oliver Sacks' book An Anthropologist on Mars has a lot of interesting thoughts on this general topic. He mentions terms related to temporal lobe epilepsy type experiences, like "interictal personality syndrome", "Waxman-Geschwind syndrome", and "Dostoevsky syndrome". In any case, Dostoevsky seems to have been, like Melville perhaps, "particularly possessed" by something or other. Pfly 03:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The majority of beings subjected to the Total Perspective Vortex. ---Sluzzelin talk 05:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In the novel Loin de Rueil by Raymond Queneau, experiences similar to those described in the question above are referred to as ontalgie (from Greek οντος, "being", and αλγια, "pain"). A cure is found, but the inventor refuses to exploit it commercially.

("Supposez un instant que je guérisse l'ontalgie existentielle et l'angoisse substantielle et l'épilepsie essentielle, qu'est-ce qu'ils deviendraient les médecins, les théologiens, les pharmaciens, les philosophes, les chirurgiens? Tous ruinés! Tous foutus! Plus de Vatican! Plus de Faculté! Oh mais je les connais, ils ne me laisseraient pas faire dès qu'ils commenceraient à entendre parler de guérison zou ils me feraient disparaître de dessus terre où j'ai bien du plaisir à être surtout en ce moment assis que je suis en face d'une gentille mignonne comme cette enfant."). Jacques l'Aumône 14:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

April 3

Iran-U.S. War

If Iran and the US were to go to war would it be likely for Iran to win?? And do you think russia or china will side with Iran or would they just stay out of the conflict(if it occurs) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.86.190 (talk) 02:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

I would not like to address my opinions here, but since you asked a opinionated question, I will reply with an opinionated answer. Considering the facts, I would say that it is not likely. That's all I will say. Sr13 (T|C) 02:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It really would depend on the scope of the war, and how you define winning. If the US and allies just went in and droped a bunch of bombs, then they would probably "win" in that they could destroy the Iranian military with very small losses on the US side. On the other hand the US would "lose" because just dropping bombs would be unlikely to change the Iranian government, in fact it would give the people reason to rally behind the government. If the US tried to invade with ground troops, the situation would become much more tricky. US ground forces are already streched thin in Iraq, so while the US military could probably pull off an invasion, there just wouldn't be the forces available for the resulting occupation. Remember, it took almost a year of occupation before US foces finally captured Saddam Hussein. Additionally, the fighting fitness of the US military has been degraded by the occupation of Iraq. Iran is also a larger and more rugged country than Iraq. Finally, unless there is a huge change of opinion, I personally do not think that there is the political will to support an occupation of Iran. In conclusion, while I think it is possible for the US to militarily defeat Iran, I do not believe that the US could easily occupy Iran.

As for Russia and China, they would probably not support the US at the United Nations, but I doubt that they would interfere militarily. Russia would probably stand aside and watch while both side pummled each other, China would be more concerned, because much of Iranian oil exports go to China, so an interuption of Iranian oil production would have an immediate impact on China. On the other hand, China is a huge trading partner with the US and would not like to lose their trade status.Czmtzc 12:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the US would have a hard time of it if they were to invade; air strikes would be much more likely. The US will always be hamstrung in occupations (as compared to historical regimes) because it's a liberal democracy. It's actually not particularly difficult to put down insurgencies: the Nazis basically did it in France, Hafiz al-Assad did it in Hama, the Romans did it in the Levant, and there are many other examples. The problem is that you have to be willing to kill every man, woman, and child that lives in whatever neighborhood your soldier was attacked in. After that happens a few times, the population itself will work hard to prevent any insurgent activity. Since the US is, or at least wants to be, one of "the good guys", it's not willing to go this far to win an elective war, and hopefully never will be. --TotoBaggins 12:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Even if the U.S. launched successful air strikes against Iran, the blowback would be considerable. The Iranians would be likely to try to disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, through which almost all of the region's oil exports pass. This would send oil prices soaring and likely bring on a recession in the United States (exacerbated by the collapse of the housing boom). While Iran might not be able to close the Strait of Hormuz, it could almost certainly bring the fight to U.S. troops in Iraq by boosting financial and military support for Shiite militias there. Marco polo 13:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have only one thing to say to this: when trying to put out one fire is it really wise to start another that would, if anything, be even bigger and less subject to containment? Toto, I'm not quite sure that I agree with all of your points on the efficacy of tyrannies in the supresssion of insurgencies. In real historical terms, repression has a tendency to breed even more resistance, not less. Wartime resistance in France, in fact, grew year by year, despite the oppressive measures of the occupation regime. In both Yugoslavia and occupied Russia, again despite the most vicious and murderous repression, far in excess of what happened in France, the Nazis were forced to fight major partisan wars, which they effectively lost. And we know from the history of the war in Vietnam that even soldiers from liberal democracies can be reduced to the kind of wholesale barbarism that you are hinting at. When this happens, contrary to your contention, the people, if anything, grow even more angry. Clio the Muse 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What is there about being a "liberal democracy" that would prevent Collective punishment? It was an official policy of the British and United States governments in past wars an occupations. Granted, the Geneva Conventions seem to argue against them but the present U.S. Attorney General has called them "quaint" and questioned their ability to restrain U.S. policy. [5]. Edison 14:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the gorverment has to answer to the people at election time. The more barbaric the policy of retaliation to the occupied country, the less support the invader will get from their home land. That is why liberal democracies quickly tire of long wars and need to see real evidence of progress in order to continue support.-Czmtzc 17:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this is an opinion question, I have answered here, instead: [6]. StuRat 16:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not going to happen so I'm not going to entertain the original poster's penchant for war (or worrying about war). Vranak

@ Vranak Hmm mmm.... dr.ef.tymac 02:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Forget it. In January, debka.com was reporting that the US had secret plans to attack Iran in February. Obviously, it didn't happen. Same here. Not with the British sailor situation as it is, not with the fact that Bush would probably be impeached if he did secretly attack Iran, etc... zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that U.S. intelligence, military, and/or diplomatic sources periodically leak "plans" to attack Iran just to keep the pressure on the Iranians. Marco polo 13:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Was d'Estaing a Huguenot?

I have heard that Comte Jean Baptiste Charles Henri Hector d'Estaing was a Huguenot or of Huguenot heritage. Does anyone know of anything to back this up? 151.196.17.153 04:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that I find this contention quite surprising. Can you be any more exact about the source of your information? The vast bulk of the Huguenots left France after Louis XIV passed the Edict of Fontainebleau, revoking earlier acts of toleration. So, when the admiral was born in 1729 it was illegal to be a Protestant. The first active phase of persecution came to an end with the death of Louis in 1715, though the laws against them remained in place during the reign of Louis XV. Persecution revived in the mid-1720s during the premiership of Louis Henri, Duc de Bourbon. Though the new policy was pursued with far less vigour, there was still active discrimination in many branches of French life against practicing Huguenots. For the Comte de Estaing to have risen so high in the French military service, while a known heretic, would, therefore, have been all but impossible. I cannot, say, though, if his antecedents had any Huguenot connections, though Auvergne, where he was born, was not, so far as I am aware, an area strongly associated with French Protestantism. Clio the Muse 05:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Estaing seat is the Château de Ravel. Any sign of Protestantism there? --Wetman 05:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, both of you. The ducal house of La Tour d'Auvergne appears to have had some Huguenot roots but otherwise I can't find anything to support the idea that d'Estaing was a Huguenot. Possibly he had Huguenot ancestors, but I can't find anything to support that one way or another. 151.196.28.220 15:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Who would follow Pervez Musharraf?

If Pervez Musharraf were to be assassinated, who would be in charge of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal? 75.35.72.51 07:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoever recieves the backing of the Pakistani military. Flamarande 07:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

According to the constitution, the Chairman of the Senate of Pakistan (currently Muhammad Mian Soomro) would act as President. After him, it's the Speaker of the National Assembly (currently Chaudhry Amir Hussain). But as Flamarande says, the military probably has more say than the constitution does. -- Vardion 08:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

When will Mothering Sunday next fall on March 12th?

The date up to 2016 is given on the "Mothering Sunday" page, but I haven't been able to get a formula that will tell me when it nest hits 12th March. The reason I want to know is that I was born on Mothering Sunday, and my mother is curious to know if it's likely to hit that date again in her lifetime. I'd be grateful for spome help.172.159.53.101 08:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Mothering Sunday is the same as Laetare Sunday, which is three weeks before Easter in the Western liturgical calendar. So it is on the 12th of March precisely in those years in which 2nd April is Easter Sunday. That will be the case in this century in 2051 and 2056, if I did not make a mistake in my calculations.  --Lambiam^Talk 09:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Easter will fall on April 2 on those years. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 15:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The Guillotine

Why wasn't the guillotine named the 'guillotin'? Guillotin is closer to the Dr. Guillotin's name.69.218.230.103 12:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a actually a language question, equivalent to, "what are some of the French language rules for changing a person's name into a noun describing a thing". If you cut and paste both questions at the WP:Reference_desk/Language I suspect you will get an even better answer. alteripse 12:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

From Joseph-Ignace_Guillotin: "Dr. Joseph-Ignace Guillotin (May 28, 1738 – March 26, 1814) did not invent the guillotine, but on October 10, 1789 proposed the use of a mechanical device to carry out death penalties in France. His name became an eponym, and eventually his relatives, after asking the government to stop using the name to describe the machine, changed their family name."
From Guillotine: "... Antoine Louis (1723–1792), member of the Académie Chirurgicale, developed the concept put forward by Guillotin, and it was from his design that the first guillotine was built. The guillotine was first called louison or louisette, but the press preferred guillotine as it had a nicer ring to it."
"A nicer ring to it" between IPA /luisõ/, /luisɛt/ and /gyijotin/? Les lézards qui sautent! Yep, best to leave this up to Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language. --Shirt58 13:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the infernal machine should really have been called 'The Schmidt', after the German piano maker, Tobias Schmidt, who built the prototype in 1791. In the early days it was in fact known as a 'Louison', or a 'Louisette', after another champion of this 'humane' method of execution. The first public use came in April 1792, when Nicholas Pelletier, a highwayman, was beheaded. It was only later that year that it began to acquire a more sinister political purpose. Incidentally, the extra 'e' seemingly was added by an unknown English poet, because 'guillotine' fitted better with his ryhming scheme, at least it was according to the information provided here [7]. I saw one in Vietnam-a truly ghastly object. Clio the Muse 14:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe the reason the French revolutionaries so loved the guillotine was that it was "classless". Up until that time, nobles had been beheaded by an axeman, who had to be well trained and practiced to do a proper job. For commoners, they didn't bother with this expense, so just used some cheaper method of execution, like hanging. The guillotine, for the first time, allowed them to execute everyone by beheading. Unfortunately, it was a bit too easy, and the desire to "entertain the mob" may have been one factor leading to the huge number of executions, much as during the Roman Empire. StuRat 16:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

When the guillotine was adopted on 20 March 1792, the Reign of Terror was eighteen months in the future and Louis XVI was still King of France, and would be for nearly four months afterwards. It's popularly associated with the Revolutionary Tribunal and the Committee of Public Safety, but it predates them. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, Angus, Louis would contine to be king until the declaration of the Republic in September 1792, though he lost the last vestiges of royal power in the August uprising. You are, of course, quite right in your contention that the mass use of the guillotine is most associated with the Reign of Terror, though it was already being used for political executions well before September 1793. It is also important to understand that the Terror, and the use of mass execution, was not to 'entertain the mob' Roman style, but a way of legitimising and channelling the violence unleashed by the Revolution, which came in successive waves, and threatened to reduce France to a state of complete anarchy. Revolutionary France was, in some important respects, similar to contemporary Iran, with several interest groups competing for influence and power. In the end the Terror, for Robespierre and his faction, was the only way of regaining the monopoly of revolutionary violence, a way of heading off the wild men, like Hébert, and controlling the anarchy of the sans-culottes. The guillotine was, it might be said, the sword of the institutionalised revolution. Clio the Muse 22:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Romain Gary

On Dec 2 1980 the French writer and Diplomat comitted suicide.

He left a note explaining his action. I had a typed copy at that time that I kept in my archives.

I lost that copy and now I need it for research on Gary.

Where do I find a copy of that letter please ?

aniskaros

This is probably for Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. - Patricknoddy^{TALK (reply here)|HISTORY} 15:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Two suggestions:

• Post your query on the Romain Gary page's Discussion (Talk)} page in either or both the English or French Wikipedia, where it might be picked up by a knowledgeable user.
• Search the website dedicated to Romain Gary (linked from the French Wikipedia page), or send them your query via their "Nous contacter" feature. You can also register online and participate in the site's forum. (Correspondence in English, if necessary, would probably be acceptable.)

Good luck! -- Deborahjay 17:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's at least partially quoted in: Garcin, Jérôme (1982) "Romain Gary," 1981 Universalia, pp. 551-552, OCLC 19750801.—eric 17:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Utilitarianism

Hi. I have a 2,500 essay to write on the topic "Utilitarianism can only ever lead to the treatment of individuals as means rather than ends in themselves." This is a criticism made of utilitarianism made most notably by Kant. I sort of understand what the criticism is getting at, and have done a lot of research on the topic. However, I am struggling to get started on writing the essay itself. Obviously I'm not asking for anyone to write the essay for me or anything like that, but I was wondering if anyone could suggest how I might approach the essay, any ideas that may help me get started on it, any ideas of what I might cover, etc. Thanks in advance. TP86 14:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

To begin with you have to ask yourself if you agree with this statement or not? If you do, then the article you have linked contains a number of trenchant criticisms from a whole range of intellectual perspectives, beyond that of Immanuel Kant. If you do not, you have to think of an effective defense of the notion that the true goal of social policy and public morality is indeed the greatest good of the greatest number. So, which is to be? I personally feel that the whole notion of collective happiness is based on a serious intellectual and logical fallacy, and in terms of state policy could conceivably have quite sinister consequences. What more 'perfect' utilitarian society is there than that described by Aldous Huxley in Brave New World, or Yevgeny Zamyatin in We? Anyway, the very best of luck with your essay, from me writing in the year 60AF (After Ford) Clio the Muse 15:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

@ TP86 To begin with you have to ask yourself if you agree with this statement or not? ... and to get there, you might do well to first operationally define what Utilitarianism actually means, and the extent to which this definition can be rationally applied to matters of public policy, in contrast to strictly personal matters of one's own ultimate values. For an extreme example, a Solipsist might contend that the topic represents a false dichotomy, and thus, methodological solipsism would influence both the definition and development of the topic.

Rigorously defining key terms is also a good way to: 1) demonstrate your familiarity with the topic; 2) bolster the internal consistency of your conclusions; and 3) take a sizable chunk outta that 2,500 word limit without much heavy lifting :) dr.ef.tymac 15:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this sort of thing is that 'utilitarianism', to the novice, just sounds like a position that favors 'useful' (use, utility) action. Hardly something that can be argued against. In fact hardly something that can be discussed meaningfully at all. But back in the 18th and 19th centuries, big-U Utilitarianism was a particular position favoring particular policies, which nowadays are rather irrelevant to our current state of affairs. I guess what I'm getting at is that Utilitarianism doesn't really mean much these days. Of course that doesn't stop mediocre teachers from assigning essays on it. Vranak

I think that judgement might just be a tad too harsh, Vranak, on the assignment and, more particularly, on the poor teacher!. Utilitarianism, as a mode of though and system of ideas, is deeply redolent of forms of bourgeois mediocrity, but it remains a valid subject of investigation notwithstanding, if for no better reason than the insight it provides to the kind of attitudes that underpinned so many of the great industrial and political changes that swept the western world in the nineteenth century. Even today, it is not entirely without political application, when policy is often weighed in terms of what may be perceived to be good for the community as a whole, rather than what may be individually worthwhile. Besides, any academic assignment is about focusing the mind; and that is a worthwhile exercise in itself. Clio the Muse 01:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You lost me at deeply redolent of forms of bourgeois mediocrity. All I know is that I feel more sympathy for thirty students given a decadent assignment than one teacher labelled 'mediocre' on the internet. Vranak

Oh, I see: mediocre and decadent. What a fascinating combination! I had always associated decadence with a certain type of literary genius. Clio the Muse 05:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway... what's your take on a professor who assigns a 2500-word essay on Utilitarianism, in the year 2007? Vranak

I really have no 'take' on this, as you put it, and it must be obvious from what I have written above that I have very little respect for utilitarianism as a branch of thought, or a guide to social policy. But this is really beside the point. It exists, and did, at one time, form an important part of the Anglo-Saxon intellectual tradition. You may be right that any assignment of this kind is subject to the test of relevance, though this would really depend on the kind of class it has been set for. For me, however, the content is far less important that the skills required in producing an answer. It matters not if the test is about ancient Epicureans or Victorian Utilitarians. It is all to the good. Clio the Muse 19:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've sympathy with both Vranak and Clio's views on this. Thinking of Utilitarianism as it applies to thinking behind the first opium war is a fascinating exercise for me, and for those who choose such study. In modern terms, I don't think the philosophy is relivant, as it doesn't apply to ordinary conservatives and is oppositional to modern leftwing expressions (like victim promotion, minority adoption and cause celebre). DDB 05:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have a position, DDB; I merely attempt to address an issue in the terms presented. I know I could give a scorcher of an answer to this question, which is worth the effort for the sheer intellectual pleasure it would give, if nothing besides. After all, ours not to reason why, ours but to do...or don't! Clio the Muse 05:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Benching?

What does "to bench" mean in this context? Neither Bench nor wikt:bench is much use. —Angr 18:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

See bentsching. I've added it to the disambig page and wikilinked it in the article. Natgoo 18:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! —Angr 18:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Holy See

Is the term "Holy See" a synonym for "Vatican City?" --wpktsfs 19:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

See Holy See. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

"Holy See" is sometimes used as a synonym for Vatican City; this usage is somewhat incorrect as technically speaking there's a difference which you can read about in the link Kainaw provided. --JayHenry 19:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Court Cases concerning student rights at school

I need to do a project on student rights at school, where they were violated and the supreme court had to deal with the issues. For Example, the Tinker case, and the Broussard v. School board of Norfolk, and I need some other sources, but nothing too vulgar, to work off of, as I need to cite these and give information on them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.177.198.107 (talk) 20:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Category:United_States_education_case_law lists alot of cases (not all SCOTUS) -- Diletante 20:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the relevant section of the ACLU's web site. Also try the Legal Information Institute, which has many court opinions. If you get a recent case, you can look at all the cases cited in the opinion and look up those cases in turn. -- Mwalcoff 01:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

In Australia, we've recently had the (developing) case of some school students from elite private schools being drug tested at their chosen sport here DDB 11:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Paintings by Dwight Frederick Kirsch

We have a large oil painting by Kirsch. He is a well known artist in Nebraska I understand. We would like to sell this painting, perhaps on ebay, but we have no idea os what the possible value would be. How does one go about getting a value? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.222.173.170 (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

You could find an art appraiser who is familiar with this particular genre of painting. But I would try looking for museums in Nebraska perhaps, and call them, and just ask. I have some familiarity with galleries and museums and I've found that museum curators, especially at somewhat smaller museums, are usually helpful and have a good idea what they're talking about. Ultimately, of course, the painting is only worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it. --JayHenry 16:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Zion National Park Name

Why is Zion Canyon named as such? Who named it? It think it was the Mormons or something. Anyways, I just want an etymology. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.6.32.52 (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Have a look at Zion National Park. The name, which comes from the Bible, and means 'place of peace', is though to have been given, in the first place, to Zion Canyon by one Isaac Behunin, who settled there in 1863. Clio the Muse 23:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This Behunin has been described as a "Mormon settler," and he is quoted as having said, "A man can worship God among these great cathedrals as well as in any man-made church - this is Zion." I don't have any reason to regard these googled sources as reliable, but it's plausible. Though the park is often unjustly neglected in comparison to the Grand Canyon (huge) and Bryce Canyon (fantastically shaped rocks), it in fact has an awesome sublimity of its own that fully justifies its toponyms' many references to the desert God of old ("Table of the Patriarchs" or things like that). Wareh 03:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sartre on Stalin

It is often said that Sartre supported Stalin, however all I have been able to find after extensive research is secondary sources. Does anyone have a direct quote from Sartre where he states his opinion of Stalin? --Gary123 Apply now, exciting opportunities available at Continental Op Detective Agency! 23:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Gary. As always with Sartre there is no simple answer to your question. His relationship with Stalin and Communism was ambiguous, sometimes warm, and other times very cold. For the kind of information you are looking for you will really need to look through the relevant editions of Les Temps Modernes, published in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Sartre was initially highly suspicious of Stalinism, and published information on the gulags and exposures of the show trials. In January 1950 he wrote; If there are ten million in concentration camps...we wonder what reason we could still have for using the term socialism in connection with it...From this we conclude that we should not show any indulgence towards Communism, but under no circumstances can we form an alliance with its enemies. He also wrote that Stalinism had rendered Marxism sterile, and that The politics of Stalinist Communism are incompatible with the honest exercise of the literary profession. His attitude began to change somewhat with the onset of the Cold War, and the growing mood of anti-Communist hysteria in the west in general, and France in particular. But even so, Les Temps Modernes retained a certain critical detachment, publishing a series of articles criticising the show trials in Czechoslovakia in 1953. There were also articles exposing Stalin's anti-semitic policies. You really should also have a look at The Critique of Dialectical Reason, where Sartre examines Stalinism as a historical phenomenon. I would suggest, moreover, that you read Ian Birchall's book Sartre Against Stalinism, as well as The Prime of Life and Force of Circumstances, volumes two and three of Simone de Beauvoir's autobiography. There you have it: no direct quotes on Stalin the man, but lots of sources to explore! Best of luck. Clio the Muse 00:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Seder

What is the Kiddish Cup used for at a Jewish Seder?

For starters, Wikipedia has articles on kiddush and Pesach Seder. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

April 4

Trying to find a 'how to draw' book

Hi folks, I'm looking for a book that I've seen online before - as in, the full book scanned online, rather than just for sale. I can't remember who it's by or what it's called, but hopefully someone can point me in the right direction...

I think these books are quite old - possibly from around the 1960's or 70's. There's a series of them, on drawing cartoon and realistic styles, all by the same author. I think they're pretty well known. All I really remember is that one of them had a small cartoony looking guy on the front cover holding a pencil that was much bigger than him, and had sections on drawing faces using a bunch of circles to make the head, cheeks, chin, etc, in a kind of caricature style.

Does this ring a bell with anyone? I know it's not much to go on, but any help would be great.. thanks :D --02:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah-ha, found it! - the author I was looking for was Andrew Loomis, should anyone be interested. --Noodhoog 02:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Board game history

In what year did Willie finalize the rules to Kalah that are more or less the same as we know today? I'm just assuming some time between 1910 and 1940 but it would be nice to have a better date.--Sonjaaa 15:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My Country; right or wrong

Who first said, "My Country; right or wrong"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.14.236.83 (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Carl Schurz said "Our country, right or wrong.". Sorry, I think Schurz was quoting or paraphrasing Stephen Decatur. --LarryMac 16:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC) --LarryMac 16:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was Decatur's toast, adapted by many others, including the English writer George Orwell, for whom it was My Country Right or Left. Clio the Muse 19:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

broad mind and the world.

if we closely analyze we can see that as the mind of the people have become broader the skirts in the market have become smaller and smaller, what really is the connection between both, why has it happening this way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.95.191.49 (talk) 17:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

I have a broad mind and several short skirts. Is that any help? Clio the Muse 19:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Contrarily, I find that short skirts tend to reduce the number of things on my mind, generally to one. --TotoBaggins 19:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ha, ha! Well, women, have long known just how narrow the male mind can become, on so many issues beyond the obvious. I am, of course, joking, Toto, as I am sure you understand. Clio the Muse 19:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

education

why each ones life begins and drains with education?? is it going the right way?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.95.191.49 (talk) 17:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Please forgive me, but I simply do not understand the thrust of your question. Are you asking if education is a good thing or not? Clio the Muse 19:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

So what IS Pot Cravie?

Once, the horse of Spey invited a couple from the market to mount him, and once aloft upon his back they could hear the horse say, "And ride weel, Davie, and by this night at ten o`clock ye'll be in Pot Cravie." In 1884, a man in Cairny spoke of a slightly different saying of the kelpie that said, "Sit weel Janety, or ride weel, Davie, for this time in the morn, ye'll be in Pot Cravie."

Since I am currently compiling as much information as I can about water-horses, I figured it would be good to know exactly what this "Pot Cravie" was. Was it the destination of the person(s) in question? A body of water (perhaps a river) located nearby? A name for the underworld? I've searched for the term as much as I can, but the only results I've found were re-iterations of the same story. Does anyone have any idea what Pot Cravie is or was? Or is it so obscure that no one knows anymore? 71.217.98.158 19:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Politicians and new media?

Heya people,

I was wondering if anyone had any examples of politicians (preferably European) using 'new media', like blogs, vlogs, facebook, etc to connect with their constituents? Need some examples for a uni presentation xxx --83.104.50.65 19:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)