Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 November 20

= November 20 =

Term for theory of why we follow social rules
There is some single word for the idea that states: the reason we act within what society deems 'acceptable,' is the feeling that society is always watching us. I think it starts with the prefix "omni," and I'd like to read more about it... but having forgotten this word, I'm having a really hard time! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.137.117 (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like your trying to figure out a word on your vocab HW. No offenese Esskater 11   —Preceding comment was added at 01:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Homework or not, it sounds interesting to me too :) schyler (talk) 01:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you thinking of Bentham's Panopticon, which Michel Foucault, in Discipline and Punish, invoked as a metaphor for social surveillance that breeds self-discipline? Marco polo (talk) 01:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was thinking about! That's a lot Marco polo. Also, I'm sorry to tell you Esskater11, It's not homework :) I'm an engineering student (guess where? It's not hard, with my ip...), and I've never taken any sociology course that would relate to that. It's just something that I remember reading about once a really long time ago on Wiki, and I happened to think about recently.  Sorry if you feel let-down!  I'm sure on this board you can snipe other people who are working on homework, so best of luck.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.137.117 (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Honest mistake, where im from it was 8:30 P.M on a monday. With the way you fraised it and the time and all being primo howework doing time you could imagine how i could think that, no? Esskater 11  03:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

From the "is always watching us" and "omni" it could be omniscient but it doesn't really correspond to the definition you gave it. Keria (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, Keira, omniscient doesn't quite capture it, as we can see from this discussion: the panopticon of Wikipedia that tries to zap "homework questions" is clearly not omniscient :-). 203.221.126.252 (talk) 14:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * :D Ah, I wish my last name was Knightley ;P But then I probably wouldn't be on the ref desk and I could pout my lips at the Panopticon. Strange that it is such a close translation to Omniscient, then the all-seeing eye of dog notion has I believe that exact same function. Keria (talk) 21:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC) ps and if I really was Keira my English would be better too!
 * Ok, yes, that was, er, Keria. Just a typo, you see :P. You're almost right about the omniscient thing, but from what I can tell, that's the active voice, all-knowing. If you want to do "being known by all," that would come out as something like "omnibus scientur," and if you want it as a single word, I guess omnibuscientur sounds good enough. Panopticon is almost a Greek equivalent of this, but I'm guessing it's more like a kind of idiom that derives from the Greek lexicon, rather than a Greek phrase. It was a kind of prison, ouat. 203.221.126.38 (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If it were a true panopticon, it wouldn't need to zap them; they'd zap themselves! --24.147.86.187 (talk) 17:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You're in Toronto, 142.150.137.117? Xn4  01:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Biplob
What does "Biplob" mean in Bengali and what about "biplobi"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.212 (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Revolution and Revolutionary, respectively, which is a particularly apt name in Bengal. Relata refero (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Vaisakhi
Do Pakistani Punjabis celebrate Vaisakhi? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.212 (talk) 02:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not particularly commemorated in Pakistan, although several individuals of the Sikh faith make pilgrimages there every year. Relata refero (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The effect of advancing military technology on the balance of military power within the nation of Asean?
Dear Sir,

Plese elaborate and throw some idea on it. Thank you

ajin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.102.255.222 (talk) 08:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I assume you are talking about the ASEAN bloc? Your question is an incredibly interesting one on a subject I would happily talk for hours about! The balance of military power (BoP) among ASEAN nations is a key factor which the states keep in mind while conducting their foreign and defence policy, and new military technologies have a large effect on this BoP. Singapore has really got to be your prime example of an advanced state in the bloc which is very aware of the effect that new military technology can have on a fragile BoP when making defence procurement decisions. Singapore has the most advanced and impressive military in the region, but it is careful to keep new military technologies which it has procured outside of the area - for example, after acquiring AH-64D helicopter gunships from the United States, it made a deal with the US to keep the hardware in the States rather than take delivery of it in Singapore, and the Republic of Singapore Air Force has only recently moved a few of these helicopters to the city state. All of Singapore's A-4SU Super Skyhawks are kept in France for 'Advanced Pilot Training', for the same reason, although the lack of training space in Singapore is also a factor. Finally as far as Singapore is concerned, they delayed deployment of the new AMRAAM, again bought from the US, because it far surpasses anything which fellow ASEAN nations yet have. I don't know whether it has yet been deployed.

The march of aeronautical technology is not the only factor in the ASEAN BoP. Given their geography, you can see that navies are very important to ASEAN nations. Indonesia, which until recently had a bad reputation as far as naval power is concerned (due to a number of factors such as outdated kit, corruption on a massive scale, too few resources etc) has upped the ante and bought a new class of corvette: the Sigma. These will be impressive vessels, possibly armed with Exocet bloc IIs, and they give Indonesia 'blue water capability', nominally at least. The next ten years will, in my opinion, see a rush by ASEAN states to attain blue water capability for their navies, and the acquisition of naval technology will play a large role in that. Something like this can't do anything but affect the balance of power, as states will come to worry that they can be surrounded by a blue-water capable navy of their neighbours.

Alas, I don't have time to go on more about this. The question sure does look like a homework assignment but I have to confess to my enjoyment in writing this answer! I hope it helps.

--Chrisfow (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Liberation to conquest
when and why did the french war of national liberation in the 1790s turn into one of conquest? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Winter Lion (talk • contribs) 14:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The French Revolutionary Wars certainly embraced a crusading ideal of liberation at an early stage, expressed in the Edict of Fraternity, issued by the National Convention in November 1792. Jacques Pierre Brissot, a leading Girondist, the faction keenest on war, said the the French offensive against the powers of 'Old Europe' would be a "crusade for universal liberty."  It was an illusion, of course, the same one that effectively inspired Lenin and Trotsky in 1918: that 'liberation' at the hands of a foreign army was somehow better than rule by one's own domestic 'tyrants'.  Brissot's hopes were exploded at an early stage.  After the French occupied Belgium and the Rhineland in early 1793 most of the local people refused to participate in the elections they organised.  It was ample confirmation of the view previously taken by Maximilien Robespierre, the chief opponent of the Girondists, that "No one loves armed missionaries" and "Liberty can never be established by the use of foreign force."  Sobered by the failure in Belgium the National Convention revoked the November decree in April, after George Danton had argued that it appeared to commit the Republic "even to start a revolution in China" when the needs of France so clearly had to come first.  When Robespierre and the Jacobins took power in September 1793 an entirely new approach was adopted.  A war of liberation became a war of exploitation.  Philanthropy, in other words, gave way to imperialism.  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Napoleonic empire
how was the napoloeonic empire organised and how did subject people respond to his rule? Winter Lion (talk) 14:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We have articles Napoleon I of France and First French Empire which you will find informative for starters, and by clicking on the Wikilinks in those articles you can find additional information. See particularly First French Empire. If you have more specific questions, volunteers here will doubtless answer them. Edison (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

unification of germany and political integration of india
what were the similaritiea and differences in the methods adopted by Otto Von BIsmarck and Sardar Vallab bhai patel in the unification of germany and political integration of india —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.220.161 (talk) 15:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "Unification of Germany and the political integration of India: compare and contrast (15 minutes, 40 points)"--Wetman (talk) 20:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

An interesting question, an interesting comparison, 59.91; different men, operating towards similar ends, using entirely different methods. And, yes, despite some superficial resemblences, the methods were quite different. Otto von Bismarck used force, and the threat of force, first and diplomacy second; or rather, for Bismarck, diplomacy was the adjutant of force. Sardar Patel, in contrast, used diplomacy first and second, with force coming in as a distant third. It would be true to say that Patel's diplomacy, the success of his diplomacy, was carried forward on the wave of a popular movement, a desire for India as a unified and distinct idea, that made any residual opposition from the rulers of the princely states a political irrelevance. In other words, the national movement came first and unity second. In Germany the kind of popular national movement represented by Congress in India had been defeated and demoralised by the failure of the Revolution of 1848. It was Bismarck who created a new national movement, not as a deliberate strategy, but as a by-product of his Prussian-based Realpolitik; one based on the deliberate limitation of the national ideal, and the magnification of Prussian power.

Patel was working towards the integration of all India, whereas Bismarck was working towards a more limited Germany, one which excluded Austria, previously the dominant power in the German Confederation. Patel invoked Indian patriotism to win over the princes. In Germany the princes already knew the price of defying Prussia. In the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, most of the other German states had sided with Austria. In consequence some, including Hanover, Hesse-Kassel and Nassau were annexed and their ruling houses ejected. Most of the others were shepherded into the North German Confederation under Prussian tutelage, a process that was once likened to the fleas uniting with the dog! Patel shows himself at his most Bismarckian, if it can be so expressed, in Operation Polo, the forced integration of Hyderabad into the Indian Union; but this came when all else failed, a last, not a first option. Bismarck's militant policy was at its most effective in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1, when the remaining independent German states in the south, headed by Bavaria, were urged forward into a Prussian-dominated German Empire, predicated on new forms of patriotism that emerged from Bismarck's politics of power. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Clio. I should add that Political integration of India is - or was, I haven't checked since it's main author left the project - a WP:Featured article of ours. Relata refero (talk) 11:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

People from middle eastern, south asian countries who have the last name, Khan
Some people from those areas, have the last name, Khan. Is this due to influence from the Mongolians, and Ghengis Khan? I also know some people of european descent who have the last name Khan. Is that possibly due to the Mongolian invasion of eastern Europe? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Causality loop. Khan.  Lanfear's Bane |  t  16:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. What does that have to do with my questions? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Should distinguish Kahn from Khan -- Kahn is usually a form of Cohen... AnonMoos (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Kahn/Cohen is found among European Jews and their overseas descendants, many of whom are in Israel (middle east). I doubt it would be much encountered in south Asian countries, where Khan is more prevalent and is from a different source.  -- JackofOz (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The variation in South Asia and the Middle East dates to Turkish titles, which originally influenced the Mongols. The article Khan (name) has details. Relata refero (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why No Stuart M Kaminsky Article?
I am so pleased with Wikipedua, use it a lot, and find most everything I look for. I've been very puzzled as to how it is possible that there is no article on this prolific, prominent mystery writer author. I've followed all the instructions to find such an article, including the one on using Google with the special field regarding wikipedia, and that did result in an Italian site for Kaminsky that I accessed through Google and clicked on translate to English. But that is not the same as just entering Stuart M Kaminsky or some such into the Wikipedia search and getting a good article on Kamisky. Is there some policy, or is Kaminsky somehow preventing an article on Kaminsky for some reason, or...??? I realize one can create an artucle, but I don't have the knowledge and that is why I was searching for one to read and learn from. It would be so much easier, informative and productive to access an existing artcile rather than hunting and pecking through miscellaneous hits and marketing efforts through search engines. Thank you for any info/advice, etc. Ohiyesapr (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * From the many references to Kaminsky already in the encyclopedia, I'm pretty sure there would be no problem with a neutral and verifiable article on Kaminsky. If you think you can provide a starting stub, use the following link: Stuart M. Kaminsky.  Wareh (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone is already working on one - User:ShelfSkewed/Sandbox2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs) 18:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I've been "working" on it for some time without making any progress. That sandbox has been sitting idle for too long, so if any editor would like to hijack what I've done so far and make a real article out of it, you're welcome to it! -- Shelf Skewed  Talk  15:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't they use flamethrowers in Europe during the gunpowder age?
Not talking about WW1 and beyond if anyone doesn't know what the gunpowder age is... The technology was fairly simple. Simpler than a gun even. You just need a flammable liquid, a pump, and a pilot light. Against clustered infantry using single shot muskets, it would have devastated them. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Pre-modern pumps were very short range, large apparatus that required large crews. And would be very high priority targets for the opposing force - as flamethrower operators would find out. However don't forget much older tecnologies based on throwing flaming pitch, heated shot or Greek fire. Rmhermen (talk) 19:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a very short-range weapon, however... AnonMoos (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Range depends on the pump being used. Musket fire back then didn't have very good range either. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A pump of the time had a range of a few meters, a musket had a range of dozens of meters. A battle between a weapon that can shoot 10 m and a mass of trained infantry that can shoot 100 m will be a short battle. Rmhermen (talk) 00:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. You are assuming too much. Muskets back then were horribly inaccurate, were single shot, and took a long time to reload. Melee fighting took place when the two armies slowly closed in on each other. That was the point of the bayonet. It turned the musket into a spear. Having a few soldiers armed with flame throwers mixed into soldiers armed with muskets would be very helpful, and would be far superior at fighting soldiers armed with only bayonets. The Chinese actually did make good use of flamethrowers. The Europeans simply didn't have very good flamethrower technology until the late 1800s, and by then, guns were using rifling, and had higher rates of fire meaning close ranged combat became rare. It wasn't until WW1 did their flamethrower technology become truly useful. Malamockq (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually bayonet combat was exceptionally rare—bayonets were better as threats than as weapons; most people don't want to use them (it is a particularly nasty way to kill someone), and nobody wants to get stabbed by them (it is a particularly nasty way to get killed). Bayonet charges were effective as terror tactics, but actual combat was rare, as a number of military historians have noted. Don't confuse movies with real life. Chinese flamethrower technology was purely defensive; good for defending against siege machiens but totally impractical for mid-battlefield combat. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 23:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * A primative flamethrower is only going to be of limited use. The Byzantines used Greek fire effectively against ships (where setting the thing on fire would have a tremendous effect) but as an infantry device it would only be useful if you could reliably shoot out very large powerful bursts of flames (the sort of thing you get when you are using high-pressure propane as your fuel). A hand-pumped weapon that shot flaming oil would likely not be very effective, at least in comparison to other weapons, and would have a high likelihood of blowing up whomever was using it. Even Greek fire often backfired, as our article points out, because it was hard to control. The modern flamethrower—the infantryman who can quickly produce a wall of flame—is the result of being able to release the inflammable liquid/gas with great speed, which requires understanding pressure and propane and etc., things which were not developed until well into the modern age, and is most useful when against enemies holed up in tight fortifications (not quite the early modern battlefield). There is a nice history of incendiary weapons here if you are curious. --24.147.86.187 (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Scots volunteers in France
Does anything about the Scots volunteers (the Army of Scotland) who fought in France during the Hundred Years War? I can't find an article. Thanks. John Morrison. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.161.200 (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is some information in Battle of Baugé and in Auld Alliance. Rmhermen (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The section on the Scots in France in the Auld Alliance page more or less covers this, John, but in addition to the article on the Battle of Bauge you should also have a look at the Battle of Cravant, the Battle of Verneuil and the Battle of the Herrings. Clio the Muse (talk) 23:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I did intended, but never quite got round to it yet, to improve the articles on the Scots commanders, namely the Tineman and John Stewart, Earl of Buchan, using a little paper by Bernard Chevalier ("Les Alliés écossais au service du roi de France au XVe siècle", in Laidlaw (ed.), The Auld Alliance, France and Scotland over 700 years). It would be worth a look if there's a copy in a library near you. The French were rather ambivalent about their barbaric northern allies. A little ditty from the later Crusades period says "There are three things you'll find throughout the world: rats, fleas, and Scotsmen." Saint Louis didn't think much of the Scots: "I should rather a Scotsman come and govern well than that you, my son, should govern badly." By 1413 or before Étienne de Conty thought rather better of the Scots. Clearly, as we covered just the other day when discussing Robert Stewart, Duke of Albany, etc, poor old Étienne wasn't well informed on contemporary Scots politics: "You should know that in the said kingdom of Scotland there are warlike men, bold and loyal to their king. The Scots have always liked the French, and French the Scots; and the Scots, always faithful to God and to the Church, have conformed to France's example in matters of faith as in war."
 * It didn't take much experience of the Scots in France to change opinions for the worse. Thomas Basin, perhaps not the most credible witness, reported the plans of the Scots leaders before Verneuil: "So great, they say, was the presumption of the Scots - distrustful and disregarding of the French armies and power, which had been so weakened by civil war and foreign war - that they planned, had they but defeated the English, to kill all the nobles who remained in Anjou, Touraine, Berri, and the regions around them, and to seize their homes, their wives, their lands, and their rich possessions." [Caveat emptor: my translations are unlikely to be particularly good.] Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Scotland and France have been historic allies only because they shared a common overriding enemy, England. Your assertion that the Scots and French just "liked" each other is overly simplistic and supported by no authority. I could cite many sources going back to the 1300's of French knights fighting in Scotland (against England of course) who found Scotland (rightfully so perhaps) to be a dreary, backwards, and "uncivilized" land relative to their French homeland. Later in the 17th and 18th centuries Scotland became home to a fierce brand of protestantism, Calvinism, which held abhorrent the native Catholicism of France. There is "no love lost" between the Scots and the French, sir. Belicia (talk) 05:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Belicia, Angus is quoting Étienne de Conty when he speaks about "liking", not stating his own opinion. SaundersW (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

patient access to their medical records
what is the procedure patients have to take to access their medical records -bonnie tola —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.46.115 (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Generally, you write a letter to the person or organization that holds the records, requesting a copy. They may have a release form you have to sign, though really a letter usually suffices. They may also ask for copying charges, if there are a lot of pages you want. - Nunh-huh 21:13, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What country are you in? In some countries there's no obligation for them to let anyone (least of all you, the patient) see their records. In others, there's a statutory right. In the UK, we have a Freedom of Information Act. --Dweller (talk) 12:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The IP traces to Virginia, USA. If you are asking about the procedure in the U.S. then you simply have to contact the agency holding the records you wish to review.  They will guide you through the process, which will require a written request and proof of identity.  There are certain cases where you might have restricted access to your own medical records (see HIPAA).  Otherwise, you have full access to your own medical records.  152.16.59.190 (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Questione...
What du you think would happen if all the public defenders in a given judicial circuit filed "demands for speedy trial" at the same time on all their cases? Belicia (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't you answering? Do you hate me sir? Belicia (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We don't hate you - I expect nobody has come along yet who feels able to answer your question. I certainly don't know enough about legal procedures to try to answer, but please do be patient - there are lots of helpful people here, but sometimes it does take a while before you get an answer, best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the inbox for demands for speedy trial would overflow. For the rest, if I did not answer, it is not because I hate you, but because I don't even know what a demand for speedy trial is in the first place. --Lambiam 12:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to be assuming that speedy-trial requirements are routinely violated. I don't practice criminal law, but I'd be surprised if your assumption were correct.  I think a competent public defender would keep track of the dates and would move to dismiss a case if the government didn't bring it to trial within the time allotted -- and I think such a motion would generally be granted. JamesMLane t c 10:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)