Humanities desk
< November 15	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 17 >

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.

November 16

National Convention

Why was the National Convention established during the French Revolution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.202 (talk) 00:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The National Convention was the executive authority established after the monarchy was suspended and then abolished in September 1792. It was charged with drawing up a constitution for the new republic. Clio the Muse 01:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interesting comparison with the English Convention Parliament of 1689, which followed the Glorious Revolution of 1688. The King having fled, a more regular parliament could not be summoned. Xn4 02:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Financial index

What is a financial liquidity weighted index? How may it be constructed, eg using equity assets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.27.213 (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An equity market index is a composite value calculated from the market prices of a basket of consituent equities. Instead of assigning each constituent stock an equal weight in the calculation, some indices weight stocks in proportion to their total issued market value or market capitalisation. A liquidity weighted index might mean that stocks are weighted in proportion to their liquidity, which is typically measured by the number of shares traded in a given period. Alternatively, it might mean an index in which constituents are weighted by capitalistion but selected by liquidity, as is the case for these LPX Private Equity Indices. Gandalf61 14:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Habsburg lip

Is the deformity known as "Habsburg lip" still around? Does any living person of Habsburg descent show it? If not, who was last noted for it (assuming that's a meaningful question)? —Tamfang 04:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I found at this site [1] was the following text: "Marie Louise . . . had a large and generous mouth with full lips, the lower one being the true “Hapsburg lip,” slightly pendulous–a feature which has remained for generation after generation as a sure sign of Hapsburg blood. One sees it in the present emperor of Austria, in the late Queen Regent of Spain, and in the present King of Spain, Alfonso". I believe the reference is to Alfonso XIII, grandfather of the current King Juan Carlos I of Spain. I checked some images of Alfonso XIII on Google, but, if he had the same jaw as shown in portraits of Charles II (who also had a number of problems quite aside from the infamous jaw that was so defoprmed he could not chew), he also had remarkable photographers. It appears that there is a "Hapsburg lip" as described in the quote and also a "Hapsburg jaw" which is a much more marked deformity with a strong forward thrust, although the terms refer one to the other in many cases. Bielle 05:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Prognathism. Is it around? Yes; it's a form of mandibular prognathism. It is notable in the Habsburgs only because it is so easily traceable in such a royal family where everybody had pictures painted of them. Today it would be treated with orthodontics. ---- 24.147.86.187 (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Habsbourg lip fullness was theorised to have been caused by a slight negroid interbreeding within the Habsbourg family per Jonathan Swift and others. Belicia (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barefootedness

Was barefootedness associated with being God in Greek or Roman periods? Do you have good, citeable web articles for this ? I knw that Augustus of Prima Porta was barefooted but do we know when it started or somwething? I wikilink to a specific article about being unshod and its relation to rligious deities would be helpful as well. Thank you. --Kushal^t 05:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this should be able to help you a bit, search for The Bare Feet Speak: Nonverbal Messages of Barefootedness for the relevant info. Sorry, I am not aware of anything onwiki regarding this, other than in the different articles related to Greek mythology and which gods were always depicted as barefoot. Dureo 12:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Kushal^t 17:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help remembering that Tolkien's Hobbits nearly always went barefoot. See also History of nudity. Xn4 01:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mozart's juvenilia

What year is considered the end of Mozart's juvenilia works? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KeeganB (talk • contribs) 07:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Implying that you can cut up a composer's career into years... It is doubtful whether you can say: "Then and there it ended" (whatever "it" may be, in the context). Thus, 1773 is sometimes called a turning point (second Italian visit), but then, Bastien und Bastienne had been written earlier. Periods are not something you snap out of, after all. Bessel Dekker 12:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roosevelt and De Gaulle

What was it specifically that caused Roosevelt to be so hostile and distrustful towards General De Gaulle? 81.151.6.70 08:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dakar perhaps? See Battle of Dakar and [2] Bessel Dekker 12:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think in general Roosevelt was rather wary of the idea of sacrificing U.S. troops in order to enhance De Gaulle's personal political power, or to maintain or restore France's pre-war colonial empire. AnonMoos 14:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it had to do with the political differences among French exiles after the Fall of France. The people who went to, or remained in, the USA were often not well disposed towards the Free French in London who could reasonably be described as a rather disparate and desperate bunch, about whom Roosevelt would hear little that was positive, and much - and all of it true - that was not. Jean Monnet, one of several Frenchmen whom Roosevelt knew and trusted, was a late supporter of Free France. Poet and diplomat Saint-John Perse was another who had little time for the jumped-up General and his Cagoulard, and later Communist, collaborators, and never became any sort of Gaullist. Where the majority of the exiles differed from Roosevelt was in accepting the inevitable much sooner. Monnet joined the CFLN in 1943, rather late in the day but not quite the eleventh hour. Roosevelt never entirely came to terms with the idea of De Gaulle leading France. Still, FDR's view of De Gaulle makes more sense if we forego hindsight and consider just how bizarre it must have seemed that a mere brigadier, with no meaningful political or administrative experience, should head the government in exile of France. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general Roosevelt considered De Gaulle to be military adventurer and a political libility, more likely to alienate the French than to bring them over to the Allied cause. Indeed, even after the commencement of Operation Torch, the Allied invasion of Vichy territory in North Africa, the United States remained hopeful that the government of Marshal Petain could be brought over to an anti-German view. De Gaulle, full of his own importance, only stood in the way. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cromwell and Manchester

I should like to know the exact reason for the dispute between Cromwell and the Earl of Manchester? Also why was Cromwell exempted from the terms of the Self-Denying Ordinance when Machester, Essex and Waller were not? Tower Raven 10:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's asking too much to want the exact reason. As his second-in-command in the east of England, and later, Cromwell saw Manchester at close quarters and built up a low opinion of him as a military commander. And from the political point of view of Cromwell and his 'war party', Manchester was altogether too negative about the prospects of the civil war - see, for instance, Manchester's famous remark "If we beat the King ninety-nine times, yet he is King still; but if the King beat us once, we shall all be hanged." Cromwell became the leading opponent of Manchester in Parliament.

On the Self-denying Ordinance, Cromwell wasn't entirely exempted from it to begin with, but the Committee of Both Kingdoms found him so invaluable that it kept on extending his commission for forty days at a time. In the end, his position was so strong that this device was no longer needed. Xn4 00:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are really serious about this, Tower Raven, you will find many of the relevant documents in The Quarrel between the Earl of Manchester and Oliver Cromwell edited by J. Bruce and D. Masson, published by the Camden Society in 1875. There were growing differences over religion, politics and the conduct of the war. The whole struggle was passing beyond the limits that Manchester was prepared to contemplate. For Cromwell the old Eastern Association no longer served the purpose; only a New Model Army would do. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nazi literature

In 1933 many prominent writers left Germany after Hitler came to power. In April of that same year Goebbels organised the burning of 'degenerate' books. My question is what came in its place? What was the literary form embraced by the Third Reich? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.130.15.240 (talk) 13:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, so-called "degenerate" books are not a literary form.
During WWII, there is usually thought to have been no independent literature in Germany at all. Authors who had fled the country, wrote Exilliteratur ("Exile literature"), which, again, cannot be described as a form.
After the war, literature started all over again from what has been called a Stunde Null ("Zero Hour"). Bessel Dekker 14:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What came in its place, 193.130? What is usually left after a bonfire? Why, ashes. Speaking at the burning of the books (which came in May 1933, incidentally, not April) Goebbels announced that "The soul of the German people can express itself again. The flames not only illuminate the end of the old era, they also light up the new." The 'old era' consisted of some 2,500 writers, many of international renown. To fill the gap Goebbels delegated control of literature to Department VIII of his own Ministry of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment. The Department quickly set up a set of standards, to which all aspiring writers were obliged to conform. Work had to be produced in any one of four categories: Fronterlebnis, stressing the camraderie of war; Weltanschauung, refecting the Nazis world view; Heimatroman, stressing the national mystique of the German localities; Rassenkunde, reflecting Nazi views on race.

I am sure it will come as no surprise for you to learn that those who operated within this straight-jacket were disinguished by their mediocrity; people like Werner Bumelburg, who wrote mawkishly sentimental novels about comradeship in the Great War; Rudolf Binding and Bōrries von Münchausen, who wrote tiresome pseudo-Medieval epics. The few writers who stood out against this apotheosis of the second rate included Hans Grimm and Gottfried Benn, who though initially supportive of National Socialism, later turned hostile. Others like Ernst Jünger, though a hero of the German right, had always maintained a sense of personal distance. Goebbels' phoenix was nothing more than a turkey. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've included parts of this reply in the article Nazi book burnings. Thanks! Sandstein (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clio is spot on. In short, what filled the gap was mostly worthless propaganda. Goebbels famously said "We can build autobahns, we can revive the economy and create a new army, but we can't build new dramatists." Xn4 01:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am by no means an expert on German literature, but what about German film in the Nazi period? What about films like Das Bad auf der Tenne by Volker von Collande? Corvus cornix (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not all bad, Corvus, because Goebbels took a far less instrumental view of film than he did of the written word. You will find very little obvious propaganda and a lot of escapism, very much in the Hollywood style of the day. Thinking purely in terms of cinematic technique, some of the progaganda and documentary material that was produced is superb, and here I am thinking specifically of Leni Reifenstahl's Triumph of the Will and Olympia. Anyway, have a look at Nazism and cinema and List of films made in the Third Reich. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autors are for example: Historical fiction: Waldemar Glaser, Alfred Karrasch, Hans Friedrich Blunck

fiction about farmers:Joseph Georg Oberkofler, Felix Nabor,

fiction about seetlers:Josef Ponten, Ulrich Sander

fiction about the war:Otto Paust, Edwin Erich Dwinger

fiction for woman:Kuni Tremel-Eggert, Wilhelm Schmidtbonn

Drama: Hanns Johst,Hans Rehbergs

Thingspiel(: Eberhard Wolfgang Möller, Richard Euringer.

Lyric poetry:Herybert Menzel, Herbert Böhme, Gerhard Schumann

source: One important songwriter of the Hitler youth was Hans Baumann.

Ernst Jünger is a difficult person: He was no Nazi. He was between National Bolshevism and Nationalrevolutionär. In 1927 and 1933 the NSDAP wanted him to become a member of the Reichtag for their party, but he said no. In 1933 his house was searched and seizured by the Gestapo because of his contacts to communists and Ernst Niekisch. 1933 he should become member of the Dichterakademie and he said no again. And again the Gestapo searched his house. In 1939 his book Auf den Marmorklippen was published and it is said to be a resitance book by a lot of people and was read as one i.e. by former members of the German youth movement(Jünger was one). But Ernst Jünger always said that Auf den Marmorklippen is not a resitance book. 1939 he had to become a officier in the Wehrmacht. In France he became contacts to to the Widerstand within the Wehrmacht and collected for them documents about conflicts between NSDAP and Wehrmacht administration in France. 1942 he was send to the Caucasus, it is said to found óut how the German soldiers in there would act after a Assassination of Hitler. He was send there by Karl-Heinrich von Stülpnagel, a member of the Widerstand. 1942 he started his book Der Friede. Ein Wort an die Jugend Europas und an die Jugend der Welt, that should be published after Hitler lost power and supported a united Europe. Jünger knew a lot of the people involved in 20th July 1944 plot(i.e.there were several peopleof the German youth movement. When the Wehrmacht lost France Ernst Jünger went back to Germany with his troops. In Germany he was put out of active service. In 1945 he was commander of the Volksturm of the village Kirchhorst/Lower Saxonia. In this function he send the soldiers (boys and old people) home when the allied forces came near the village. In 1944 his son penal military unit, because of animadversion/ comments he made. After 1945 refused to write in the Denazification papers.-Phips (talk) 01:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freikorps

Why did the Weimar Republic turn to the Freikorps for its initial defence? Who were the men who joined these formations and what motivated them? 193.130.15.240 13:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Wikipedia Reference Desk. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misevaluation, but it is our policy here to not do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn how to solve such problems. Please attempt to solve the problem yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. Thank you. -- kainaw ™ 14:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you. Neither this, nor my previous question, have anything to do with homework. Might I suggest, Kainaw, that if you have nothing to say that it is best to say nothing. 193.130.15.240 14:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear anonymous writer, Kainaw has a valid point. Your questions are phrased in such a way that they are difficult to answer, and while we are quite happy to help (see my reply above), some of the groundwork has to be done by yourself. It might be helpful if you think carefully about what exactly it is you want to know. This might at the same time provide you with some ideas about finding better answers to your questions yourself: some questions are more "answerable" than others. Bessel Dekker 14:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also it doesn't really help to be rude 193.130.15.240, it just discourages others from helping you, which when trying to have your homework done for you is really a bad idea. Do my homework for me while I insult you doesn't get you very far. Lanfear's Bane | t 16:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lanfear's Bane: "it just discourages others from helping you, which when trying to have your homework done for you is really a bad idea." Why did you write this? The OP has specifically stated that this is not a homework question. Assume good faith. -- Malcolm Starkey (talk) 19:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to apologise to the original poster for the uncivil and bitey way in which he/she has been treated. I assure you that not all refdesk contributors are as rude as Lanfear's Bane and Kainaw. -- DuncanHill (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The template Template:dyoh has been reworked many times to ensure that it is not rude. If you still believe that it is rude, then fix it instead of simply claiming that it is rude. My experience is that those who take offense to it are those who are it is made for - people who asked homework questions and hate being told not to ask homework questions. They always say, "You are mean/rude! This is not a homework question!" -- kainaw ™ 19:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kainaw - it is not the template I am complaining about - it is your behaviour in using it when you have absolutely no proof that a homework question was being asked. Your claim that anyone who takes offence is actually someone asking a homework question is also profoundly rude and makes an entirely unjustifiable assumption about refdesk users. "Good manners cost nothing" - and if you find it offensive to read questions, why do you come here? -- DuncanHill (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can you claim that a question about a historical event that is rarely discussed outside the classroom, phrased in the way a teacher would put it in a homework essay question, is in absolutely no way a homework question? The template states clearly that it appears to be a homework question. It then apologizes if it is not. I did not go an extreme of claiming it is 100% certainly a homework question. You have gone to the extreme of demanding that it is 100% certainly not a homework question and anyone who could possibly think that it is a homework question must hate reading questions and should go away (ie: "why do you come here?"). I assume you do not consider that to be the "rude behavior" that you are complaining about. -- kainaw ™ 20:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that there is no reason to assume that it is a homework question. Please stop lying about what I have said. -- DuncanHill (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I am saying that there is reason to assume that it may be a homework question. It is about a topic rarely discussed by English-speaking people outside of the classroom. It is phrased in the manner which would be used if it is an essay assignment. You did state that it is not a homework question and there is no reason to assume that it is a homework question. You state that as fact, not opinion. It is, in fact, an opinion. You state that I am rude for stating that it may be a homework question and replying with a cookie cutter template that states that it appears that it may be a homework question and apologizes if it is not. You did state that I am offended to read questions and questioned why I even visit the Reference Desk. Now, you claim that all of this is a lie. No matter how much you believe your opinion, it doesn't make it fact and it doesn't mean that people with other opinions are wrong, rude, and should go away. -- kainaw ™ 23:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My, my; what a lot of heat for precious little light. Anyway, 193.130 if you have not been completely discouraged by the above let's see if it is possible to cast a little illumination on the matter at hand.

First of all, you have to consider the political circumstances in Germany in November and December of 1918, where an old system of rule had died but a new one was yet to be born. Friedrich Ebert, the new Social Democratic Chancellor, stressed that the task before him, the object of the German Revolution itself, was to create a stable parliamentary democracy. The challenge to this came not from the right but from the left; from people like Rosa Luxembourg, who responded sarcastically "Oh how German this German Revolution is! How proper, how pedantic, how lacking in verve and grandeur." This was a view shared by her comrades in the extreme left Spartacist League, soon to be reconstituted as the Communist Party of Germany. Over much of Germany the fragile republic came under challenge, with major risings in Berlin in January and March 1919. At first Ebert and his Minister of Defence, Gustav Noske looked to their allies in the trade union movement to provide militia forces. When no such support was offered they were obliged to turn elsewhere. It was Kurt von Schleicher, a career officer, who offered a solution to a serious problem-and that solution was the newly-organised Freikorps.

Who were they? Young men, essentially, uprooted by war, who had grown in a cult of violence; men with no past employment and no family; men who were motivated, first and foremost, not by politics, but by the apppeal of adventure. A great many of them had actually been trained as Stormtroopers, the elite strike force of the Imperial Army, who wished to continue in service, or whose opportunity to serve had been frustrated by the sudden end of the war. Politically, the natural home for many of these individuals was in the nationalist right, though only a minority joined the new formations for political reasons alone. As many as 25% of the Freikorps volunteers had trained as officers. A large number of these were men of middle class origin who had received battlefield commissions, and were unhappy about losing the social and personal prestige associated with this. Even more were students or cadets, too young to have served, but anxious for the chance of action. They were, in essence the same men who had served in the Italian Arditi or the British Black and Tans. Though most really wanted to fight in the east to defend the Reich's uncertain frontiers against the Poles or the Russians, action for the sake of action was the supreme imperative. Communists, Russians or Poles: in the end it made little real difference who the enemy was. Hope that helps. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panayotes Danglis

Who, in Greek history, is Panayotes Danglis? Apolla Delphinos 14:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More usual spelling of name is Panagiotis... AnonMoos 14:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And of course it is Panagiotis Danglis that you are looking for! Clio the Muse (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq

Could the planners of the 2003 invasion of Iraq have learned anything from the British experience at the end of the First World War? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.6.70 (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. - Eron^Talk 16:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a homework but if you're struggling...Suffice to say they could have learned of the difficulties of rebuilding nations, the problems that can be caused by continuing regional problems and the general trend for groups to use the 'rebirth' of the country as an opportunity to increase their strength/power and raise their profile. Add in that the costs almost always increase beyond what is predicted (why predictions are so poor is an inability to comprehend how quick costs escalate if things don't go to plan). Since it is the first world war you can also note the dangers of being too stern with the people you have fought, potentially leading to a populist backlash that could end up giving power/public support to the very type of people you were trying to prevent controlling the country in the first place. -- ny156uk (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do politicians ever learn anything from history? All we can do is echo, in the voice of Cassandra, the words of George Santayana-"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." And how! On March 12 1917, the day after Baghdad was occupied by the British, a proclamation was issued by Lieutenant-General Sir Stanley Maude, saying "Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies, but as liberators." But in place of the Ottoman vacuum the British created an imperial authority, which completely failed to take account of local tribal and religious differences, or to pay proper attention to Arab nationalism. From the outset the British had based their assumptions that the tribes constituted a homogenous bloc. In the end I can think of no better summary of the situation than that of Gertrude Bell, an expert on Arab affairs, who said "I suppose we have really underestimated the fact that this country is really an incohate mass of tribes which can't as yet be reduced to a system." Here we are a hundred years later with a country that still cannot 'be reduced to a system'. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you know of the rejoinder to Santayana? Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it—true—but those who can remember it are condemned to repeat it just as well! (I first saw a variation of this in Michael Herr's Dispatches though I would not be surprised if it had earlier origins.) --24.147.86.187 (talk) 16:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cholera is caused by polluted water. Lack of regulation (in certain manifestations) leads to stock exchange crashes. Dismantling a country's infrastructure will cause it to collapse. These are a few of the myriad things we can learn, and have learnt, from the past. Certain events will decidedly resemble repetitions of the past—but as often as not, they are unavoidable variations. We are capable of learning, even if we do not always make good use of our abilities. Bessel Dekker (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do, and there is some truth to this, 24.147; but is just as well to keep one's mind free of comforting illusions! Clio the Muse (talk) 23:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hipaa privacy policy

Deleted repeat of Question 5.16, above -- Bielle (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent Vegetative State (PVS): How many people in America currently in a PVS are under the age of 30?-- Bryantmoore (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I was at a conference recently where someone made the statement: of the people currently in a persistent vegetative state in America, 80% of them are under the age of 30.

Is there any documentation or articles out there that justifies this statement? And if so, what are the statistics? This would really help my study.

Thanks! -- Bryantmoore (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Study (Life Expectancy and Median Survival Time in the Permanent Vegetative State) gives approximately 89% of PVS sufferers as being below 30 (the exact stats are given in table 1) - mostly because younger people are morely like to survive comatose for extended periods than old people. Laïka 00:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder, and I have no specific knowledge on which to base this thought, if one of the lesser reasons might be that the younger the patient the more leeway the medical establishment, and even family members, is prepared to extend before deciding on any drastic action to terminate treatment. Bielle (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth considering that the sort of traumatic brain injury that can lead to PVS may happen more frequently in younger people than older, given they are more likely to engage in high-risk activities. I recognize these are not the only causes of PVS but this may be significant. - Eron^Talk 15:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]