Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 July 28

= July 28 =

public access to the will of a deceased
Is there somewhere I can access that will (if possible) give access to the will of someone in the USA known to be dead in the last year? 206.75.215.14 (talk) 01:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Wills are not necessarily public record. They are not required to be published.  Even if they are public record, they are not required to be published on the Internet.  Therefore, there is no website that you can go to for some random person's will. --  k a i n a w &trade; 19:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have found wills filed in county courthouses for persons whose estates have been through the court system after their death. In the US, a person can keep his/her will secret before death. There is often good reason for this, since possible heirs might get upset if they do not get the bequest they want. When the person whose will it is dies, for the will to be effective in distributing the estate, it is presented to the court as the "last will and testament" of the deceased. The will of a dead person must be filed as a court document, and can be read in the court files. The terminology varies from state to state  You can put your estate in a trust before death, or by means of a will after death, and the terms of the trust can  be kept secret. You or your agent would generally have to physically go to a courthouse in the county where the deceased lived and check the probate records. The deceased might have died intestate (no will). You could contact a lawyer in the state and county where the deceased lived and the lawyer could find out for you the details of the probate process. Sometimes it is a while (years) before the estate is closed, as when a disputed will is presented, or would-be heirs claim the deceased was not in his right mind when he left all his earthly goods to his cat or to the waitress at the neighborhood restaurant where he ate breakfast, or to the woman his children hired to look after him when he got Altzheimers. Edison (talk) 17:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Canadian death records
Where would I look to find out if someone has died and when?206.75.215.14 (talk) 01:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to try http://www.deathindexes.com/canada.html.  Spencer T♦C 21:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I should have been more specific: looking for a registered death since 1985 in OntarioDeb Tilley (talk) 15:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Visit . -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

first female attoneys in united states?
When were  women  first  allowed to practice law  in U.S.? also who  was first  woman  to argue  in  front  of  supreme court  ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.226.230.36 (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Second question: According to this Google search, it would seem to be Sarah Herring Sorin. Dismas |(talk) 04:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * For the first question, see Women in the United States judiciary. And as an addendum to my first response, it seems that Sorin was the first to go before the Supreme Court without aid from a man.  Belva Ann Lockwood was the first to do so under any circumstance.  Dismas |(talk) 06:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetical: lawsuit in USA & can't afford lawyer
In the USA, what do you do if you are sued (non small claims, but large claims) and you have no money for a lawyer, can't get a loan, can't spend years studying the law to defend yourself, etc.? Or if you also have to travel someplace to a court and can't afford it? This is hypothetical, just something I worry about at times, the basic idea of how with civil suits in the USA justice goes to the highest bidder. William Ortiz (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's definitely a problem. Some courts have a "Pro Se Office", which can provide some assistance to a person who's appearing pro se.  If the case goes to trial, many judges will bend over backward to accommodate the pro se litigant, realizing that s/he isn't familiar with the court's rules.  Nevertheless, the side with a lawyer inevitably has a big advantage.  The outcome of the case may reflect that advantage more than it reflects the merits of the dispute. JamesMLane t c 03:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It puzzles me why a person or company would be attempting to win a case for "large claims" against someone who is too poor to afford a lawyer. It costs them money to go to court, so, absent a need to set some sort of precedent, I can't see the financial sense in such a scenario. Civil suits don't always go to the highest bidder. Insurance companies are generally reluctant to go to court because they perceive a bias against them, especially if a jury is involved. (I once worked for an insurance company where "Settle, don't sue" was the underlying policy.) ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also see Legal_services. --Allen (talk) 04:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There are several reasons why a plaintiff might bring such a case. One, as you mention, is to set a precedent.  Another is that the plaintiff doesn't need a precedent of general applicability but wants to be vindicated in this particular dispute "as a matter of principle" (e.g., the plaintiff is willing to pay a lawyer to establish that it was the defendant who ran the red light or breached the contract or whatever).  Yet another is that the plaintiff doesn't believe a defendant's sad story about poverty.  Defendants have been known to lie about such things.  Finally, a defendant might not be stone-cold broke and yet find the litigation expense a huge hurdle.  If you spend pretty much all your ready cash on paying a lawyer to defend you, and get a verdict in your favor, is that a win?  The verdict is in your favor but now you really are stone-cold broke.  Of course, if you had lost, the plaintiff could get a lien on the building that you own where you conduct your business, and you'd be broke and unable to continue to operate.


 * The burden of litigation expenses is what often makes settling a good idea for all litigants, not just your former employer and other insurance companies. By the way, as to the danger of bias: In New York, the lawyers aren't allowed to let the jury know that the defendant is covered by insurance.  That knowledge is traditionally thought to risk biasing the jury in favor of a large verdict (because this defendant who's here in front of them won't have to pay it).  On the other hand, the insurance industry's incessant propaganda campaign about a mythical "lawsuit crisis" can make it cut the other way.  A judge once said to me, "I get these yuppies come in here" -- pointing to the jury box -- "who think that if they give a plaintiff's verdict, their insurance rates will go up." JamesMLane t c 04:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * To answer Bielle, there are things like SLAPP lawsuits (for examples, read about Scientology). In addition, some large companies will due lawsuits they can't win against small companies just to try to force them out of business through huge legal fees. William Ortiz (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In the UK, it's a very different story. It's standard here for the loser to pay the winner's costs so lawyers will often work pro bono if they think they've got a good chance of winning - if they lose, they don't get paid, if they win, the other side pays ("No Win, No Fee!" as the adverts say). --Tango (talk) 16:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There are even bigger problems, in areas where pro-bono simply isn't available - English defamation, for example. The McLibel Case comes to mind, where Greenpeace campaigners put in months of research to defend themselves against the enormous fast-food restaurant. They didn't have legal aid and they lost. But presumably they never had to pay the £40,000 judgement, which was never collected by McDonalds. (It was such a PR disaster, it was not worth the effort.)84.13.108.201 (talk) 20:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A practical suggestion to the OP if he's concerned is to buy insurance. Many homeowner and renters' policies provide liability protection to limit your exposure to civil lawsuits. Hate to sound like a TV ad, but talk to an insurance agent. —D. Monack talk 06:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Coluni
What's the difference between a college and a university? Les Games (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This will depend on where you're talking about. University and college have some information, but you'll have to tell us your location if you want more detailed information. Algebraist 12:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A university is, very specifically, an "institution of higher education and research, which grants academic degrees". The meaning of the word "college" is less precisely defined, varies according to where you are in the world, and may overlap with "university" in some locations. In the UK, a college may a secondary school (e.g. a sixth form college), a professional body (e.g. the Royal College of Surgeons), or a constituent part of a university (see collegiate university). Confusingly, some collegiate universities contain a college called University College, such as University College London or University College, Oxford. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Except that in the U.S., university generally means an institution that grants undergraduate and postgraduate degrees (not only undergraduate degrees). Rmhermen (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The height of the ivory tower ? StuRat (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

In the US there are many educational institutions which were established to train school teachers, and originally called "Normal Schools," which later were upgraded to "State Colleges," and later upgraded to "State Universities." Thus they seek to be on a par with the great universities of the world, but probably never will. Edison (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Aren't U.S. universities made up of two or more colleges? Are there any universities in the U.S. that aren't comprised of individual colleges? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, many. University of California institutions have "schools." DOR (HK) (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Captain wants to speak to Bradbury
Hello, I am trying to help out a user who is all very keen to find out about a short story by Ray Bradbury, and sometimes he is asking in the wrong place. When I tried to put him in touch with Mr Bradbury he say "You're talking nonsense". I think he is also claiming to be a captain; perhaps he is a real captain. He also asks questions about dinosaurs when he obviously brought up "prehistoric animals". Sure to be it is a 'leap of faith' from prehistoric animals to a dinosaur - can someone advise me how to deal with him well and to find his story as he is reluctant to contact Ray himself.

A kind gadget has sent me to here for extra tip - We establish it not the Sound of Thunder. It has paralysis and bears dying in it. The protagonist is chased. Thank you for your help and I shall let the 'captain' Rommel know. King of the Fondue (talk) 14:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoops, sorry User:King of the Fondue, I should have checked if you'd reposted here! As I say, I will get you the name of it tonight once I get back home.  Hopefully nobody will beat me to it!  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 15:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If anyone might be curious as to what "gadget" referred him here, it was me. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  15:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay! The story is named The Ruum, and it was written by Arthur Porges, not Ray Bradbury.  There is a Ray Bradbury story in the same book I've got here, The Fog Horn, which also features a dinosaur so I can see where the confusion might arise.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 19:42, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I just went to try and get an ISBN number, but unfortunately it seems an inconsiderate previous owner of this book has damaged it. :-(  It's named "Good Stories" if that helps anyone.  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 19:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Frack- forgot about "The Fog Horn". I read Bradbury in the days when it was "that sci-fi crap"— now it is in the text books. "The Ruum" was published in the October 1953 issue of Fantasy & Science Fiction— I might have that in my library, as it now seems familiar, but it looks like the story has appeared in several anthologies. --——  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  20:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like I'd better do that article on the Ruum after all, been putting it off long enough. *Unless someone beats me to it, fingrs crost* Julia Rossi (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Paradoxical driving law
Has any locality ever had a law stating that if two cars meet at an intersection, each must remain still until the other has passed? I've heard rumors about this, although I can't seem to find it on Dumb Laws(and as mentioned in an earlier refdesk item, sites like that aren't necessarily reliable). 207.233.85.23 (talk) 17:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember that if there's an intersection governed by four Stop signs (I've seen such places in Australia, so they do exist, or have existed in the past), and four cars all arrive from different directions at the same time, each car is supposed to give way to the other three.  Or even if there are only 2 cars travelling in perpendicular directions.  In the 2-car case, I suppose one would just wave the other through, but I don't know how well the defence of "He indicated he was giving way to me" would stand up in court if there were a collision.  It would be one driver's word against the other's.  The one who moved first would have to explain why they didn't give way as the Stop sign requires, and the other one would have to explain why they didn't give way to a vehicle that was already in motion.  In the 4-car case, it could get quite tricky, which is why intersections like this are now usually governed by either traffic lights or they've been turned into roundabouts.  I can't give you any refs about actual laws on these matters, sorry. --  JackofOz (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * All-way stop intersections are actually relatively common in the United States; the idea is that cars should depart in the order in which they arrived. Whether that actually happens or not is another matter.  An interesting situation at a junction near me (in Australia) is a crossroad with a stop sign on one side and a give way sign on the other.  My interpretation of the road rules is that these signs are equivalent, except that you must stop at the stop sign even if there is no conflicting traffic.  Other people seem to have other ideas... FiggyBee (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with your interpretation, FiggyBee. A Stop sign means you have to come to a dead stop, no matter what, even if only for a few seconds.  A Give Way sign sometimes requires you to stop if that's part of the process of giving way in a given situation, but it doesn't necessarily mean you have to stop.  --  JackofOz (talk) 02:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * But the tricky bit seems to be if you have two cars coming from opposite directions, wanting to turn right in front of each other. My feeling is that a car already stopped at the stop sign has right-of-way over a car approaching the give-way sign, but a lot of drivers seem to think the driver with the stop sign should always give way to the driver with the give way sign.  See what I mean? FiggyBee (talk) 04:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see now. Well, in that case I'd disagree with you in general.  If they're both indicating they're turning right, then there'd be no issue anyway because there'd be no chance of a collision (or if there were a collision, the car that was indicating "right" but didn't actually turn right would have some explaining to do).  If the car approaching the Give Way was not indicating they were intending to turn but proceed straight through the intersection, then it would depend on how far that car is from the sign, and how fast they're going. "Stop" means stop, and then give way as appropriate.  Once the first car has already stopped, the two signs might as well both be Give Way signs.  If the "stopped" car can take off and turn right safely in plenty of time before the other car arrives at their Give Way sign, they'd be perfectly in their rights to do so because it couldn't be interpreted as turning on front of oncoming traffic.  But if they misjudged the other car's speed, and a collision occurred, the "stopped" car would have some explaining to do.  Equally, if the "stopped" car had already started to turn right before the other car arrived at the intersection, and the second car didn't slow down sufficiently to avoid a collision, then they would be the one to do the explaining, because they clearly failed to "Give Way", as required by their sign.
 * In essence, it's a fallacy to assume that a Give Way sign automatically gives a driver any more "rights" than a driver facing a Stop sign - and a potentially very dangerous assumption. It all depends on whether the first car is already moving, in which direction, at what speed, and some other factors.  The only drivers who can (generally) safely assume they have any more "rights" over those with Stop or Give Way signs are those with no signs at all, including traffic lights; but even then, they have to drive in such a way that takes account of all circumstances, many of which cannot be codified because of the subtleties, complexities and inherent uncertainties of human perception, not to mention some of the crazy things our governments do with road and traffic arrangements.  --  JackofOz (talk) 04:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation of "Cuil"
The new search engine Cuil just launched, and all the press says that the name is pronounced "Cool." While I don't doubt that the creators want it to be pronounced "cool," is there any justification in the English language for pronouncing it thus?

I suppose there are a few "ui" --> "oo" examples (I can only think of "juice"), but "cuil" to me seems like it should be pronounced "quill" or "CUE-ul" or something. For instance, "cuish" is pronounced "kwiss", "cuisine" is "kwee-zeen", "acuity" is "a-CUE-itty". Hmmm... I guess it could also be pronounced "kill", if we look at "circuit" and "biscuit."

So does is there any justification in English for pronoucing "cuil" "cool"? (Besides the fact that "they can pronounce it however they want 'cause they invented it"). Thanks! &mdash; Sam 19:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Haven't you answered your own question by providing "juice" as a corroborating example? English pronunciation is sufficiently borrowed and cribbed from enough sources that virtually any pronunciation can be "correct"; there's certainly no need for "cuil" to be expected to adhere to the most common pronunciation of "ui", whatever that might be. &mdash; Lomn 19:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On that note, I'm going to go catch some ghoti. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, pronunciations are based on context. That's why ghoti would't actually be pronounced that way, and that's why the joke works. English pronunciations, though often irregular, are usually easily worked out by English speakers. So even if you haven't ever heard the word "pone", you can be pretty sure it's pronounced like "bone" and not like "done", because that's the way that letter combination would regularly be pronounced in English. (Also, now that we have the Etymology from GreyKnight, we see that the reason for this non-English pronunciation is because they are using the Gaelic (i.e. non-English) pronunciation.) &mdash; Sam 19:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cuil (also coll, calltuinn; orthography is fun in Gaelic!) means "knowledge" (also "hazel"; there's a mythological connection there). The Gaelic word is pronounced that way, so there you have it!  -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 19:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Their use of the Gaelic word is referenced to http://www.cuil.com/info/faqs/ by the way (bit slow to load at the minute, I suppose they're having some server load issues). -- tiny plastic Grey Knight &#x2296; 19:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for that answer. That sort of answers my original issue: it wouldn't normally be pronounced that way in English because it's NOT English! Nice coincidence for them that the Gaelic pronunciation sounds like a marketable English word. &mdash; Sam 19:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone here speak Gaelic? They could help, even if it isn't fluent.84.13.108.201 (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem to have got your answer, but maybe future questions of this nature would be best directed to the Language ref desk, which is brimming with cuil customers just itching to answer language-related questions, pronunciation being a language-related question. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The Gaelic pronunciation of cuil is [kʰuəlʲ]. The anglicised version of it would definitely be pronounced the same as cool. In Ireland, it's common enough to have Gaelic names for brands, towns, etc. They have the correct Gaelic pronunciation, and an anglicised pronunciation which approximates the Gaelic pronunciation with English phonology. Steewi (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

When spealt with the gaelic fada over the "u" i.e. cùil, the pronounciation would definately be "cool" or at least "coo-il". Without the fada, in gaelic, I reckon it would be pronounced "quill" 165.228.176.26 (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mark Twain's Jim
I remember an episode in which someone, probably either Tom or Huck, upon seeing Jim cut himself, is surprised to learn that Jim's blood is red, too, or that underneath, black people are "just like us". It was mean to to be the sort of humanistic lesson found over and over in those adventures, I assume. Having just finished both adventures of Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, I didn't come across the event, though. So, am I making this up in my memory? Does it occur in another of his novels? Is it added in one of the film, or television adaptations? Thank you. Llamabr (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * May have been Bowlderized - see the tvtropes article on that sort of thing, I'll link it once I get home since I seem to have forgotten the name of itAvnas Ishtaroth (talk) 06:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So I just made it up? It seems a strange event, for me to just have imagined. Llamabr (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've found the 70s film you saw.  79.66.124.253 (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, you're a better googler than I. Thank you very much.  I'm surprised that it was a movie -- my long ago memories seem to be of reading it.  The reviews of this as a musical are not so good, but I'll add it to my queue, just the same.  Thanks again. Llamabr (talk) 16:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Ordinary general meeting
What's the difference between an ordinary general meeting and an annual general meeting? Seans Potato Business 21:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You may want to see Annual general meeting and Extraordinary General Meeting. I can't find anything here about ordinary general meeting, though. I hope this helps,  Spencer T♦C 21:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh here, found this: Mass meeting. This seems to be the ordinary general meeting.  Spencer T♦C 21:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

History of the Sikh Religion and the Muslim/Hindu Conflict
My father who grew up as a Hindu in India tells me that the history of the Sikh religion began when a coalition of Hindu gurus had their followers send all of their first born sons to Northwest India to fight the Muslim invaders. My father also says that these Hindu gurus gave these sons their own guru. However, when you read about the history of the Sikh religion none of this is mentioned. Is there ant truth to my father's story or is it just Indian folklore? Even so is there any history of gurus in India sending a wave of first born sons to the Northwest around the time of the advent of the first Sikh guru? 71.231.122.22 (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in reading this.  Spencer T♦C 23:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Or History of Sikhism. -- k a i n a w &trade; 01:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)