Humanities desk
< April 1	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

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).[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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: [1] — 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [2]. Clio the Muse 05:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Our article states that even Twain gave light respect to Luck of the Roaring Camp, one who was otherwise not much of a fan.[3] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 April 2

Contents