Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 March 10

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

March 10

For Marx - page numbers

How many pages does the original 1965 French edition of For Marx have? If someone could link to a library catalog with this information that would be really helpful. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The "bibliographic information" in Google Books says 258 pages. I don't know if this URL will show it for you. The book is only previewable, so I can't confirm the count by looking at the pages. --69.159.8.46 (talk) 04:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• It's hard to tell which edition is the original since there seem to have been multiple 1965 editions. But this suggests 258 pages as well. This (scroll way to the end for the 1965 version of "Pour Marx", then float the mouse cursor over the title) suggests 263 pages, but the BNF catalogue link in the float-up doesn't work. Weird. 2601:640:108:A5F5:F823:7F80:84B2:C54D (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
• I think you mean "only snippet-viewable". Searches for 257 and 258 show these as what seem to be page numbers, while 259 produces no match. Amazon.fr allows one to see pages of a pocket edition, which looks like a facsimile reproduction originally ending with a section "Note complémentaire sur l'« humanisme réel »", of which the last line, on page 258, is "Janvier 1965.". Then page 259 and following contain a section entitled "Aux Lecteurs", added by Althusser in 1967 in order to be used for translations of the book.  --Lambiam 10:05, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

• So I did. --69.159.8.46 (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

bathrobe-like thing

The bathrobe-like thing the alien is wearing here has an Earth equivalent. What is it called and when is it worn? I think it is Asian in origin, Chinese or Japanese. 2601:640:108:A5F5:F823:7F80:84B2:C54D (talk) 07:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Happi?
Sleigh (talk) 09:00, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

It's a bit like a smoking jacket. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 09:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

You can see more of the outfit here and here. The alien is Tarquin from the Star Trek episode "Exile". The cummerbund makes this vaguely reminiscent of some styles of a men's yukata. Traditional Chinese costumes tend to be asymmetrically closed across the chest, whereas Japanese is more open and symmetrical.  --Lambiam 10:28, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Is the "Dorothy dixer" a uniquely Australian phenomenon?

My question is about Dorothy Dixer questions in parliament.

1. Is this a uniquely Australian phenomenon? Does it exist in any other Westminster-style democracies? Or, for that matter, in any non-Australian Parliaments? Our article on the topic doesn't seem to mention any cases outside Australia. Is there a different term for the practice in those countries? Or is it just non-existent?

(I'm aware that in Australia, it exists at the state-level too. My question is about outside Australia).

1. If this is indeed a purely Australian phenomenon, what factors made/make it so? Are there formal differences in Parliamentary procedure? Are there differences in how Australian politics developed, compared to those of other Westminster-style systems, which gave rise to Dorothy Dix invading parliament with dumb, self-serving questions?

@JackofOz: Just pinging you because you're a fellow Aussie, and might hopefully have some insight into this? Others, please try to see if you can also dig up anything on this. Eliyohub (talk) 12:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The concept is definitely not exclusive to Australia. The name or usage of the term possibly is. Nil Einne (talk) 12:23, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

See e.g. [1] [2] [3] number 5 and [4]. The common term in NZ seems to be patsy questions. Note that despite the derogatory way these questions are often portrayed, at least in NZ I think many observers see both sides as often using question time more for political theater rather than any genuine attempt to question and understand government goals or policy [5]. I.E. government allied MPs are trying to use the time to let the government talk about how wonderful they are and how terrible the alternative is, while opposition MPs are trying to use the time to get sound bites or otherwise something to embarrass and use against the government. Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

In the US, the term commonly used is "plant". While the Wikipedia articles on the concept don't cover all uses, you can see related ideas like shill or mole, both of which are commonly called "plants"; in things like magic shows, prepared audience members are also called "plants". If someone were to ask me, a non-Australian, what to call the above concept, I would use the word "plant" comfortably. --Jayron32 12:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jayron32: don't the terms you use ("mole" "shill" and "plant") imply a degree of subterfuge (or at least an attempt at subterfuge)? A Government MP asking their own minister a question is a totally transparent situation, isn't it?

@Nil Einne: thanks for tracking down the New Zealand terminology :-) . "Patsy questions" does sound like a sensible term. Any idea what it's called in the UK, or its constituent parts? Eliyohub (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Kinda? But it still feels like a comfortable usage to me. If I was pressed into using a word here, "plant" feels the most natural. --Jayron32 14:18, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

These sort of questions certainly happen in the UK, I'm not aware of a specific term for them, but planted seems to be about right. IIRC the practice is alluded to in Yes Minister or Yes Prime Minister. DuncanHill (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Ah, here we are "Before the 2002-03 session, there was a class of questions referred to as ‘planted’ or ‘inspired’ questions. These were questions which were printed in the Order Paper for the first time on the day they were due to be answered, having only been tabled the previous sitting day. Such short notice was allowed because the Minister to whom such a question was addressed had ‘given an indication that he or she is prepared to answer it’ on that day (i.e. had arranged for it to be asked to facilitate an announcement). This procedure has now been largely rendered obsolete by the introduction of Written Ministerial Statements (WMS). The statements that are due to be provided that day are printed in the Order Book and the statement is printed in full in the following day’s Hansard. Occasional ‘planted questions’ or ‘dailies’ still appear, usually at the behest of an answering Member to whom the WMS mechanism is not available". From "Factsheet P1 Procedure Series Revised August 2010 House of Commons Information Office Parliamentary Questions". DuncanHill (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

The term "planted question" is also the one in use in Canada. Xuxl (talk) 16:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Just a comment on the Australian practice. Our parliaments (federal, states and territories) permit two ways of any member asking a question of a minister: Questions on Notice, and Questions Without Notice. Questions on Notice are submitted in writing; answers are prepared by the relevant department and are then formally answered by the minister in writing. Both question and answer appear in Hansard. This procedure can take a couple of weeks, or more. Questions Without Notice are supposed to be just that: they're oral questions asked in parliament during Question Time with no prior notification and are answered on the spot. A well-briefed minister should be able to answer any question relevant to his portfolio asked out of the blue by anyone, just as they do at a press conference. Sometimes a minister is really caught unawares and has to "take the question on notice" and come back with an answer at a later time. Or more usually they just answer the question they would like to have been asked, rather than the question they were actually asked. Hence the constant points of order raised by the Opposition that the answers they're hearing are not relevant to the question, and hence the usual response from the Speaker that, as long as the minister is talking about the general subject of the question (the economy, employment, the health of the nation ...), it's relevant. A minister loves to be asked a question that allows him to wax lyrical about the virtues of the government, and the evils of the opposition. That in itself is fine. But when the minister arranges for the question to be asked, that really breaks both the letter and spirit of "Questions Without Notice". But it's a well-entrenched practice here, it happens every single Question Time, governments of all colours do it, and nothing I or anyone could say about maintaining the purity and integrity of our law-making protocols could possibly change anything. So I'll keep quiet and instead go and do something of value, like editing Wikipedia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)