Humanities desk
< August 6	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 8 >

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.

August 7

Execution Reactions

What was the reigning monarchs of the world's reaction to the execution of Marie Antoinette and Louis XVI. I knew the Holy Roman Emperors, Marie Antoinette nephew, was indifferent but what about others European monarchs or any non-European monarchs, if their was any that had contact with France or the French Royal Family at the time.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They pretty much universally denounced it. The French Revolutionary Wars were largely a reaction whereby all of the major Monarchies of Europe tried (unsuccessfully) to put an end to the French Revolution. Even countries that pretty much always hated France (Britain, Hapsburg lands, Prussia, etc.) all agreed that, as much as they were rivals of France, the idea of regicide hit a little too close to home, especially in England, who had tried and failed their own little anti-monarchical revolution (see English Civil Wars). --Jayron32 05:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did King Charles I think the revolution failed? Edison (talk) 05:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edison, that was rip-roaringly good fun. Thanks for wryness! A Merry Old Soul (talk) 05:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The strongest voiced opinions against the revolution and its actions was probably from Catherine II of Russia and Gustav III of Sweden who actively supported and recognized the emigrants as official emissaries. But even supposedly neutral countries like Denmark, who profited from neutral trade because of the war, there was no love lost among the royalty, - the reigning crownprince Frederick, who probably only was convinced to keep the neutrality despite his personal feelings on account of his advisors. Overall it is safe to say that the idea that a monarch could be killed by their own people did not appeal to any royal person. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jakub Jasiński, a Polish jacobin, wrote and anonymously published a revolutionary poem titled Wiersz w czasie obchodzonej żałoby przez dwór polski po Ludwiku XVI ("A Poem During the Mourning Observed by the Polish Court for Louis XVI"), which warned the Polish king that a similar thing could happen in Warsaw. King Stanislaus Augustus promised a reward for anyone who would identify the author. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain the dividing lines were laid down by the Revolution Controversy, with Edmund Burke kicking things off surprisingly conservatively. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that article fails to mention what the British monarchy thought about the matter. --Saddhiyama (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The monarchs themselves tended not to issue press releases; they got others to do it for them. Like Charles and Diana briefing against each other, via "friends". BrainyBabe (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about in Portugal and Spain?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spain and Portugal were both members of the First Coalition aligned against Revolutionary France. That would put them firmly in the "didn't like it" camp. --Jayron32 22:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No monarch likes the thought that in a nearby country the plebs are revolting and dispensing with monarchs. My dear chap, where will it all end? Following the defeat of Napoleon, the Allies restored the Bourbons. Gwinva (talk) 23:12, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was the name of the Republican Hispanic Supreme Court nominee?

What was the name of the Republican Hispanic Supreme Court nominee whose nom the Dems quashed? Ling.Nut (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might be thinking of Miguel Estrada, except I don't think that was for the Supreme Court. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a list of failed nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States. No hispanics there. --Sean 14:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was talk that Alberto Gonzales would be nominated, but he was not. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 14:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Getting drummed out of the A.G. job probably put a crimp in that plan. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:48, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong time frame — before nominating Harriet Miers, Bush was talking at a press conference about how the candidates would be selected, and after making some comment about possible candidates, said, jocularly, "I'm looking at Alberto Gonzales as I say that". I remember this because Jon Stewart showed the clip and commented, "Either the President's Supreme Court Justice nominee is going to be Alberto Gonzales, or else the president was just a total dick to Alberto Gonzales." Tempshill (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miguel Estrada, as noted above, was not confirmed as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. There was wide speculation that had Estrada served for a couple of years as a D.C. Circuit Judge, he would have been poised for nomination to the Supreme Court (it's the court from which many prior nominees have come, including current Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Ginsberg). I believe this is who the questioner probably had in mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lieutenant Zumwelt

The book Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! mentions a Lieutenant Zumwalt who worked at Oak Ridge during the Manhattan Project in WW2 ("There was a Lieutenant Zumwalt who took care of me. He told me that the colonel said I shouldn't tell them how the neutrons work and all the details because we want to keep things separate, so just tell them what to do to keep it safe.") Any idea if that guy is/was related to Adm. Elmo Zumwalt who was later the chief of the Navy? I'm pretty sure he wasn't the same guy. 70.90.174.101 (talk) 08:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no proof, but I suspect it is:

Lloyd Robert Zumwalt (1914-1998) was a nuclear chemist from Richmond, California, who worked for the Manhattan Project during World War II. After working for General Atomic in the 1960s, he was a professor of nuclear engineering at North Carolina State University from 1967 to 1980.

I found one reference that gives his rank as captain; perhaps he was promoted. This is good enough for a start; research it yourself. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 10:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's almost certainly Lloyd R. Zumwalt. A 1943 personnel roster has him as a 1st Lt. in the California Area of the Manhattan Engineer District in May 1943, and personnel transfered around (esp. from California to Oak Ridge) during the war. By 1945 he had been promoted to Captain. He was a chemist, a scientist-officer, at both Berkeley and later Oak Ridge, where he stayed after the war ended. He was later involved with Tracerlab, which helped process the detection of the first Soviet nuclear bomb. Elmo Zumwalt, on the other hand, was in active combat for the whole war, as far as I can tell. Anyway, I don't recall the specific Feynman bit, but knowing that the guy was actually a pretty hard-core scientist might or might not be informative to whether Feynman's impressions of him were right—he often makes the military people out as figures of fun, whether they deserve it or not...! --98.217.14.211 (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

product testing

I have a non- patentable item that I would like to test on the market before spending money on a trademark. Can I do this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Senior's choice (talk • contribs) 12:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. Is there any reason to believe you couldn't? You don't need a trademark to create, market and sell a product (but there are reasons why you might want to get one). -- Captain Disdain (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think what he's worried about is if he markets it ahead of time, will he lose the ability to try and put a trademark on it later. If you sell something called MyAweSomeProduct and don't have a trademark on it originally, is there a chance of getting left in the cold when you go back for one (or if someone else decides to trademark it first)? I don't rightly know. I doubt it, but I really don't know. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual property law is a part of law, so we cannot answer questions about whether a new design loses its trademark rights if offered for sale before a trademark is applied for. You might find it interesting to read Trademark, but an encyclopedia "anyone can edit" is no substitute for sound legal advice. Edison (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~That's~~That first sentence is incorrect, actually. I believe that as long as we are describing the laws as we understand them and not giving advice on a particular problem, it should fall within kainaw's supercontinuum. Tempshill (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do read the trademark article. Without giving any legal advice on your particular situation, I will point out that in the US, any company (or person, but I'll use "company" in this paragraph) can declare a trademark for free; these are signified with a "TM". To claim such a trademark, the company doesn't even file any paperwork with anyone; it just starts putting the "TM" sign next to the trademarked name (and there are some generally heard guidelines on this sort of thing; it would be on the first and also the most prominent use of the word on each "page" or surface that it's seen on; and there would be a legal statement somewhere on the product, in the manual, and in the ads, and probably on every item that includes the product's name, saying "Blazboz is a trademark of MyCompany, Inc."); and then the company tries to document that it has done some sort of trademark search, possibly just by printing out pages of Google searching for the trademark, so if it ever comes up in court that there is a competitor allegedly using the same trademark, the company may be able to strengthen its case. The sort of trademark that you pay for using the (R) mark (in the US, anyway) is called a "registered trademark". If a company in the US establishes a common-law trademark ("TM") or a registered trademark, I don't think this gets them any rights in Europe unless the company has spent a pretty large sum — I think it's US$3600 or so — to register the "international registration", and the renewals cost a significant amount, too (perhaps the same amount). Tempshill (talk) 18:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

deity

Would a deity who is omnipotent by definition also be omniscient? Googlemeister (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on your definition of omnipotence. The deity could have the ability to do anything within its own knowledge and that would still be omnipotence in some definitions. However, a total omnipotent being (can do anything possible), could simply just make itself omniscient. --Zarfol (talk) 16:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or force itself to not know anything about carrots. And then force itself to not ever have the ability again to learn anything about carrots, or to revoke its previous anti-carrot-knowledge actions. Which of course means it's not omnipotent anymore. But, anyway, I think the answer to the original question is "no". For now. Tempshill (talk) 17:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the old "can an omnipotent being create a mass it can't lift?" question. It's not one that has a real answer, it really just shows how meaningless the concept of omnipotence is. --Tango (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, our article omnipotence talks about the paradox of omnipotence, its history, etc. Tempshill (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the problem is the assumption that "all powerful" equates to "can do anything". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an assumption, it's a definition (a subtle distinction, I'll grant you). How would you define "all powerful"? --Tango (talk) 17:42, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem lies in inventing the terms and then trying to make God fit the terms, instead of the other way around. To me, "omnipotent" ("all powerful") means "cannot be defeated". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that's "invulnerable". --Tango (talk) 21:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

invulnerable means cannot be wounded. If Clark Kent is paralyzed, you still can't wound him but you can certainly defeat him. —Tamfang (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: Tango confused invulnerable and invincible. An episode of the last season of Weird Science made the opposite error: Lisa the genie saved Chett from an act of god by making him temporarily "invincible", by which she meant invulnerable. —Tamfang (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs: so it would be better to try to make God fit the terms, and then invent the terms? :P —Tamfang (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question, omnipotent and omniscient are independent. A being could be all-powerful but could be an idiot. Or could be all-knowing and could be stuck in a wheelchair. Or could be both and still can't manage the universe because it's too big to be everywhere at once. That's where omnipresent comes in, and then He's got everything covered. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that this entire discussion amounts to intellectual masturbation. I hope this is obvious anyway but just in case it's not, there ya go, I said it. Vranak (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the circle. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As others have mentioned this comes down to definition. The answer would generally be 'no', but under a certain definition of 'omnipotence' your deity could be omniscient. Rfwoolf (talk) 01:43, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the bottom line is that God would laugh at us for trying to make Him fit within our definitions. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be begging the question. Rfwoolf (talk) 10:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An omniscient being sounds useful. I could ask it for instance what is 'the least number which cannot be defined by less than 100 letters'. Dmcq (talk) 15:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As in spelling out the number instead of writing it in digits? If God is all-knowing, then He would know the answer. Although, being Jewish, He might answer the question with a question: "Which language?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1.6139061738x10^119 if you are using hexadecimal letters. Googlemeister (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

a deity who is omnipotent ... um, is there any other kind? DOR (HK) (talk) 03:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gods in polytheistic pantheons often have specialisms. I'm not aware of any mention that Athena could hurl thunderbolts or control the seas. Also, Gnosticism considers an imperfect deity. Whether that includes limited power, I don't know. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

corruption

Has there ever been a study done on American politicians that compared relative corruption against other American politicians? Probably not the kind of thing you can do with a double blind study but I seem to recall seeing something like it a while ago. Googlemeister (talk) 20:07, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. Unless they've actually been convicted on corruption charges a study that discussed the corruption of individual politicians would probably be libellous. --Tango (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Opensecrets.org says it is "your nonpartisan guide to money's influence on U.S. elections and public policy". One section lists every U.S. Senator and Representative, and discusses their fundraising totals and the top contributors. Obviously this is all from what the Senators and Representatives themselves report under the law. Tempshill (talk) 20:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've only glanced at it, but that site seems to avoid actually talking about corruption. It just makes facts available and lets readers draw their own conclusions. --Tango (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that better? What is one man's corruption is anothers campaign contribution. Do you need someone to give you your opinion for you? --Jayron32 22:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't ask the question. I think the OP wants more than just data on political funding. --Tango (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a paper talking about why there aren't more papers talking about what you're looking for. [1]. It's from 1978 though. Certainly there's something out there. Google scholar doesn't seem to show up anything obvious but maybe the jstor link (see what references that study) will give some ideas. Shadowjams (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a BBC podcast talking about election funding in part one, and in part two (I laughed when I listen to part two) talk a little bit more about "you donate/help donate you get to be an ambassador (corruption)". This is also from BBC talking about how some US presidents abusing their pardon power -> Nixon got a pardon. Bill Clinton gave a pardon to his brother just before his term ended and Bush actually shown remarkable restrain. Might not be what you had in mind but these touch a bit on "US corruption" between different presidents. Royor (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The health effects of prayer

Would you please point me to legitimate studies conducted by medical professionals (preferably peer-reviewed ones) which document the effects on the health of patients who know that they have relatives and friends who are praying for them? I recall being linked to at least one or two studies conducted by physicians which concluded that the patients who knew they had relatives praying for them were slightly less probable to get better than those who either didn't know about it or who didn't have anybody praying for them. I have been googling for a while but unluckily most of the google results I encountered were "legitimate" non-peer-reviewed studies conducted by mostly Christian religious fundamentalist organisations. I am afraid I have to dismiss these instantly due to non-verifiability and strong bias. Binrapt (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Harvard Medical School - "Largest Study of Third-Party Prayer Suggests Such Prayer Not Effective In Reducing Complications Following Heart Surgery". -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 21:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, instead of google you could try using PubMed, which indexes medical and scientific journals. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There may well be a placebo effect, that would account for some degree of improvement. You need studies that counter that source of bias (I would have four groups - people that know they are being prayed for and are being prayed for, people that think they are being prayed for but aren't, people that are being prayed for against their knowledge and people that aren't being prayed for and know they aren't). Not bothering with those kind of steps is a typical method used by religious fundamentalists, spiritualists and the like to get the answers they want out of studies. The study linked to above took a slightly different approach:

STEP investigators enrolled 1,802 bypass surgery patients from six hospitals and randomly assigned each to one of three groups: 604 patients received intercessory prayer after being informed they may or may not receive prayers (Group 1); 597 patients did not receive prayer after being informed they may or may not receive prayer (Group 2); and 601 patients received intercessory prayer after being informed they would receive it (Group 3).

I guess they didn't want to lie to their patients. --Tango (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who was terminally ill, and was prayed for, has died regardless. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very true! Not everyone that was described as terminally ill prior to their apparently miraculous recovery has died, though. --Tango (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't rule out the possibility that the doctors got it wrong. I'm reminded of this old one, probably by Dr. Youngman: "A doctor gave a man 6 months to live. The man couldn't pay his bills. The doctor gave him another 6 months!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:09, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since this is the Wikipedia reference desk... See Efficacy_of_prayer. I believe the classical study in this field is was Francis Galton's, of 1872. --NorwegianBlue^talk 15:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a 2001 report by Kwang Yul Cha in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine which reported a 100% increase in fertility rates of patients who were prayed for. Unfortunately, it developed that a co-author, Daniel Wirth, had a 20 year history of fraud, seriously undermining the "study"'s validity. However, the journal does not seem to have withdrawn it. - Nunh-huh 16:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]