Humanities desk
< December 13	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 15 >

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.

December 14

1960 U-2 Incident

The 1960 U-2 Incident article is confusing. First it says a SAM shot down the plane. Then it says an intercepting fighter's slipstream caused the crash. It also says the US never believed the pilot's account, but doesn't say what the pilot's account was! Can someone please explain to me what FGP said happened, and what is accepted to have happened? The Masked Booby (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Khrushchev is a reliable (secondary) source. He seems to cast doubt on Mentyukov's account. The precise truth in this matter is perhaps difficult to know for sure, and any one version is probably just a little off from that truth in various ways. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 01:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's fairly clear after reading the article that because of the conflicting reports without verification, we'll probably never know the actual truth. Comet Tuttle (talk) 07:03, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless the article could handle the discrepancies better than it does. I've added a new fragment which, at least, provides insight into the supposed NSA report. There are further inconsistencies in the Francis Gary Powers, notably whether 3 or 14 SAM missiles were hoisted, and whether or not the unfortunate Sergey Safronov bailed or died in his plane on impact. The FGP article teases with the NSA story but does not provide any useful information beyond FGP being under suspicion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Term for fifty-US-states-and-DC-and-nothing-more?

Since I first found it, I've always thought that "List of United States National Historic Landmarks in United States commonwealths and territories, associated states, and foreign states" was an awkward name, so I'd like to propose a name change. My ideal would be "List of...outside ____", with the blank being a phrase that conveys exactly the fifty states and the District of Columbia. Although I'm an American, I can't think of a term with this meaning: "fifty states" excludes DC, "United States" might include the Virgin Islands or Guam, and no other phrases come to mind. Any ideas? Nyttend (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could say "the United States proper," but a lot of people won't know what you mean by that -- which may be the result of any attempt to abbreviate. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Metropolitan USA? (Inspired by Metropolitan France). DuncanHill (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard this usage before, and I suspect that a lot of Americans, upon seeing such a title, would think that the list included a lot of rural landmarks. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, that sounds like it should have the opposite meaning, because of the use of the word with cities. ("Metropolitan New York City", or similar expressions, means an area including New York proper, Yonkers, Jersey City, Newark, White Plains, etc. etc. etc.) I like "United States proper", with explanatory text somewhere. A Google search on the phrase turns up some examples of it being used with what seems to be the intended meaning, although there are many false hits too, suggesting that it isn't a very common expression. --Anon, 13:48 UTC, December 14, 2010.

~~Contiguous USA?~~ --superioridad ^(discusión) 06:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, that is clearly incorrect. Disregard. --superioridad ^(discusión) 06:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Real America' was a phrase often used in the 2008 election campaign, which also excludes NYC, several other places in New England, LA and San Francisco. --Soman (talk) 14:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not simply List of U.S. National Historic Landmarks outside the United States? When I hear "the United States", I think New York, LA, Chicago, Punxsatawney, Anchorage, Waikiki, Washington, Hollywood .... I do not think Puerto Rico, American Samoa, the Northern Marianas, or Wake Island. Or Morocco. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Global Warming

Is global warming caused by solar flares from the sun?184.77.224.230 (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only 20 minutes ago this same IP user used the Science reference page to ask "Isn't crude oil a layer around the earths core. Crude oil,a part of the earths design? Isn't coal, old plant source deposits absorbed by crude?" I strongly suspect troll. HiLo48 (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway - the answer is no - see[1] and[2] and[3]. Alansplodge (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or if you interpret the question in a way it probably wasn't meant, the answer is yes. Sunspots heat the earth up. At least, the article rather cagily says they "increase the sun's solar constant or brightness" and "were rarely observed during the Maunder Minimum". 213.122.35.203 (talk) 18:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, solar flares are caused by oil deposits on the Sun. It's obvious when you think about it. Fzzt! Gzuckier (talk) 21:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's RationalWiki's take on it.
Global warming and Global warming conspiracy theory.206.130.174.43 (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Extradition (cont.)

I am continuing from my last question.

So South American countries do extradite people. They do extradite people in their own countries who are not their own citizens. They do have extradition treaties with other countries. Is that right?

If South American countries do extradite people, then how come I have heard that the reason why many Nazis who were wanted for trial after the end of World War II fled to South America and stored their money in South American banks was because its countries did not extradite people?

Why don't South American countries extradite their own citizens abroad? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.63.234 (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This OAS site doesn't exactly answer your question, but it verifies the premise:[4] My guess is that South American countries plain and simple don't want other countries doing stuff to their citizens. Note, however, that the citizen can be tried in Argentina (for example) for a crime committed elsewhere, if the other country agrees. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It indicates for the USA that US citizens are also not necessarily automatically sent to another country, except as provided by treaty arrangement. I note that for both Argentina and the US, and I would guess for others, that they are more than willing to send a foreigner back to their home nation. I expect the reason they don't want to extradite citizens to other countries is due to concerns that they might not get a fair trial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most South American countries do extradite people (see the article "List of United States extradition treaties", for example). The reason that many Nazis fled there following World War II was that several Latin American regimes were rather Nazi-friendly at the time. See http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2491/whats-the-true-story-on-south-american-nazis for more info. Gabbe (talk) 10:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be forgetting that several of these regimes were not only Nazi-friendly; there were no extradition treaties between the USA (or Israel, UK, etc) and most of Latin America at the time (after 1945). Check the dates of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay, etc: these treaties were signed much later. Flamarande (talk) 12:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Extension" of unemployment benefit as part of "Bush tax cuts" extension deal

In the US House of Representatives deal on extending tax cuts last week, part of the deal was an "extension of unemployment benefits". I haven't been able to figure out from the news articles what this means. Were newly unemployed American citizens previously entitled to x months of support and they'll now get x+13? Or is it that the payment of unemployment benefits at all required renewed approval? Or something else? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The former. Under current law, an unemployed person can receive unemployment benefits for a period of up to 26 weeks. The extension increases that period (though to what, I don't know). Wikiant (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In between the former and the latter. Unemployment benefits had already been extended to 99 weeks, in light of the fact that there are very few jobs to be had. If this extension weren't passed, it would drop back suddenly to 26, leaving everyone after their 26th week without benefits. Paul (Stansifer) 16:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More and more US workers are offered only part-time employment. Is there a US government or other credible source online stating whether such workers eligible for unemployment when laid off, and how much unemployment compensation they could receive? Edison (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unemployment insurance in the U.S. is one of those deals which is funded by the federal government but administerred on the state level. I am pretty sure, however, that all that matters is that a) you don't have a job and b) you can prove you are actively looking for a job. One's state unemployment office is where the money is dispersed, and where such proof of seeking employment is presented. Most of this is now done electronicly, so I believe that many states allow you to file "proof" of job seeking online, and payments are often made via EFT or direct deposit into the beneficiaries bank account. At least, that's how it worked for my dad. For people who don't have internet access, I think you can still go stand in line and present information in person somewhere. --Jayron32 16:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is not enough just to be out of work and looking for work to receive unemployment benefits in the United States. Unemployment benefits are not available to part-time, temporary, or self-employed workers who are out of work. Essentially, if people in those categories don't have savings, they have to rely on family members or face homelessness. Also, to qualify, a person has to have lost work by layoff rather than firing. If your employer claims that you were let go for some reason (other than a decision to cut the workforce), then you cannot receive unemployment benefits and facing savings exhaustion, dependency, and/or homelessness. Marco polo (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Unemployment insurance in the U.S. is one of those deals which is funded by the federal government but administerred on the state level." is not quite correct. Employers pay into the unemployment insurance pot. If you are self-employed, you pay both employee taxes and employer taxes (including unemployment insurance, the employer contribution to social security, etc.). I expect the bill is to fund the shortfall between the 26 and 99 weeks. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Marco polo, there are specific circumstances under which the self-employed are eligible for unemployment benefits. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article that seems to have the most info on this is 99ers, so named because the main debate has been over whether, to extend benefits past the 99th week for people living in high-unemployment states (people in low-unemployment states cap out around 50 weeks, but it varies). Also, unemployment benefits cap at roughly one-third of the former salary and are subject to taxes, which as far as I know is much less generous than the going rate in most of Europe. --M @r ē ino 21:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why so little proselytizing in airports?

I've made repeated visits to the JFK Airport in NYC recently, and I've not seen one street preacher there. Is it because richer people are less likely to convert than the average Joe on the subway? 66.108.223.179 (talk) 13:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1) Transport to airports and parking at airports is often somewhat costly. Travelling to airports on a daily basis would would mean some economic impact. 2) i think that security is another issue. Quite sure that airports like JFK has some sort of policy on unregistered vendors inside the airport facilities and airport security could possibly escort such a person out of the building. --Soman (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC)I imagine it is because the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey discourages sole traders such as street preachers. JFK is unlikely to be a public space but rather a facility controlled by its owners, a so-called 'Semi-public' space in which stricter rules apply. Are street preachers a feature at any airport? --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:10, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plus: many of the people on the airport don't live in the US, so there's no reason to invite them to your church.Quest09 (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The contrast is between subways and airports. In a subway, you can "preach" to people who are standing/sitting in one place while they wait for the subway. In an airport, you cannot get to those people who are waiting on an airplane without a ticket because you have to pass through security to get to the waiting area. So, you'd be "preaching" to people who are quickly moving past you. If your goal is, as expected, to turn a monetary profit in handouts from people, you make a lot more off people who will pay you to go away while you wait instead of trying to make people stop as they rush through the airport. -- kainaw ™ 14:42, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't LAX famous for this some years ago? Googlemeister (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago major airports in various parts of the US were infested with various cultists wearing robes and asking for money, while offering religious insights. I haven's seen such in recent years. Edison (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it an infestation. It was just hard to miss the hairy fishnuts. -- kainaw ™ 15:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At LAX in early 2009, I saw a fair number of people soliciting donations for 'charitable' causes just outside the international terminal. Not quite street preaching, but similar in my mind. I was impressed by the particular crew I saw, they were well-dressed, wearing name tags, and got people to stop by offering to give assistance at navigating LAX. They seemed to be making good money. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1980 comedy movie Airplane! (known in some paces as Flying High) began with a huge emphasis on just such activity. As someone who didn't get to US airports until some years later I can't vouch for its accuracy, but I suggest that they were parodying something that really went on in US aorports in those days. HiLo48 (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or something that went on at LAX, as mentioned above -- the one airport most familiar to people in Hollywood. --Anon, 19:45 UTC, December 14, 2010.

As for the OP's question about rich people: It's probably true that homeless paupers don't fly, but plenty of struggling middle class people do, and they certainly are not "rich" by anyone's definition. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is because this (youtube clip from the movie Airplane!) is how Americans have been brought up to deal with airport-proselytizers of any variety that they may encounter. ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about a reference? This NY Times article refers to a 2010 court ruling that finally allowed the city to bar people from soliciting donations at LAX. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've always just attacked them, per the movie, but I'm glad to know that will no longer be necessary at LAX. ;) WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from experience, it is nice to get into a friendly conversation with a person sitting next to you. Surprisingly, more often than not, it is they bring up the subject of politics or religion. It is a t this point I can share with that person what I believe about reality. schyler (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. FWIW, in the UK (I don't know about other places) it's not at all uncommon for airports to have full-time ministers. Heathrow has three. They're there to talk and help people, and I'm sure they'll explain the gospel if anyone asks, but that doesn't mean you see them walking up to people and asking whether they're saved. (Air travel is stressful enough without unwanted theological debate.) Marnanel (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The courts have ruled that airports can ban groups from soliciting donations in airports. See [5]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In many different airports in the US, I have seen solicitations being performed by people in all-white, most of them African-Americans. The males wear clothing similar to Catholic priests, the females wear long skirts and white hats reminiscent of old-time nurses. I have no idea what group they are collecting money for, as I have never stopped to investigate. Corvus cornix_talk 23:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those activities definitely went on in the old days, though whether it qualified as an "infestation" might be a matter of opinion and which airport. What I don't recall is whether they went beyond the security gates. Nowadays no one except authorized personnel and boarding-pass holders can go past security, and folks just entering the airport are probably most concerned with getting through security rather than being accosted by "Hare Krishnas" and the like, so they probably got tired of being ignored and/or told to take a hike (in varying degrees of intensity). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Baby pictures of Jesus Christ

Is Jesus Christ the only famous person whose birthday (or supposed birthday) is celebrated by the sharing and viewing of his or her baby pictures (or supposed baby pictures)? (The expression his or her agrees in grammatical gender with the word whose, which refers to its antecedent person.)
—Wavelength (talk) 16:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Christmas wasn't really intended as a celebration of Christ's birthday per se, it is a celebration of the events and story surrounding his birth. Its a subtle difference, but I'm not sure there was ever serious belief among theologians that his actual birthdate was Christmas or that it was even possible to know his exact birthdate. Rather, Christmas is a feast/celebration of the birth story of Christ. --Jayron32 16:58, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the birth of Christ was a miracle, utterly separate from what He ended up doing with his human life. The Apotheosis of George Washington not withstanding, I can't think of any secular leaders whose very birth is considered a miracle. I wouldn't rule out other religions, though -- in particular, I'd want an expert on Hinduism to weigh in before we say that "baby pictures of Jesus" is a unique feature. --M@rēino 17:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- EDIT: Aha! I was thinking of Krishna Janmashtami. Hindu experts, is it fair to say that this is a birthday celebration featuring Baby Krishna? It looks like Krish-Mas to me, but I'm out of my element. --M @r ē ino 17:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how this fits in here, but since you mention secular leaders: we don't have too much detailed info in the article, but from what I hear there's quite some myth being weaved around Kim Il Sung's birth. TomorrowTime (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite pictures, but Vesākha is sometimes celebrated by cleaning a baby Buddha statue in a basin by pouring water over it. See here, for illustration.. See also Buddha's_Birthday#Japan_2, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The birth of Jesus is held to be miraculous? His conception, I'll grant you. (Although the De Occursu Domini of Gregory of Nyssa, quoted approvingly by Aquinas, contains the rather startling passage "For He alone, whose conception was ineffable, and whose birth was incomprehensible, opened the virginal womb which had been closed to sexual union, in such a way that after birth the seal of chastity remained inviolate." So I suppose there are those who consider his birth miraculous, too...) Marnanel (talk) 23:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary was imperfect and maculate (http://www.multilingualbible.com/romans/5-12.htm), and after the birth of Jesus she presented a sin offering on her own behalf (http://www.multilingualbible.com/luke/2-22.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/luke/2-23.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/luke/2-24.htm), in obedience to the Mosaic Law (http://www.multilingualbible.com/leviticus/12-1.htm to verse 8).

—Wavelength (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you replying to me, or to Aquinas? Either is fairly pointless, since I don't believe that Mary was sinless, and Aquinas was well aware of your points and included rebuttals to them in the Summa. Marnanel (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to you. What did he say in rebuttal in the Summa Theologica?

—Wavelength (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Pictures; Leo Steinberg wrote a whole brilliant book on the sexuality of Christ as shown/demonstrated in Renissance pictures of him as an infant.--Radh (talk) 08:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen pictures of baby Moses in the Nile. Incidentally, his birth, too, is regarded in many sources as being marked by various (fairly minor IMHO!) miracles. --Dweller (talk) 16:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know, I was wrong. Sorry. This is the relevant chapter of the Summa, and he doesn't address your point as I thought he did. That should teach me to check sources before I open my mouth. Marnanel (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wavelength and others -- what exactly was Mary's sin that she required a sin offering? It seems as though you are ascribing some transgression to her that is specific, when Judaism maintains that post-partum females brought sin and elevation offerings as a standard (Leviticus 12:6). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:57, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is the official position of the Roman church that she was free both from particular transgressions and also from original sin. Before anyone starts arguing the point with me, I must point out that I am not a member of that communion and do not subscribe to that particular belief. FWIW, I don't find the argument very convincing that she brought a sin offering, therefore she was a sinner. You might as well make the same argument about the baptism of Our Lord. Marnanel (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DRosenbach, Mary had the general sin known as inherited sin. (http://www.multilingualbible.com/1_kings/8-46.htm; http://www.multilingualbible.com/psalms/51-5.htm)

—Wavelength (talk) 23:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "original sin", which is like starting life with a strike against you already. Hence the story (non-biblical, I think) that Mary herself had her original sin "taken away" by God (aka the Heavenly Official Scorer), so that Jesus would also be born without original sin. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:12, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible says that baptism does not wash away sins. (http://www.multilingualbible.com/1_peter/3-21.htm)

—Wavelength (talk) 01:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for new authors: What do I read next?

I read a lot of novels; my favorite genre is adventure / action. I have exhausted my favorite authors, Clive Cussler and Michael Crichton, as well as more recent favorites James Rollins and Anthony Horowitz. I am currently searching for other authors who write in a similar style. Which other authors have extensive character development over a series of novels? Any suggestions would be appreciated. Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 17:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Clancy writes some good action stuff, though it is more of a political/military style of action then a single individual (and his girlfriend) saving the world, finding the Holy Grail or what have you. Googlemeister (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try one of the Aubrey–Maturin series.--Wetman (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, Clancy bogs down in the gee-whiz tech he likes to describe, and the Aubrey-Maturin series go into too much loving details of the inner workings of British warships. Corvus cornix_talk 23:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are willing to branch into Sci-Fi, two post-2000 authors I have enjoyed reading are John Scalzi and Julie E. Czerneda. Czerneda, especially in her "Trade Pact Universe" series does an excellent job of character development of the key characters. Her works are very character driven. --Jayron32 20:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Fleming perhaps - although I read one or two when I was about 13, I expect I would find them too lightweight now. 92.29.123.139 (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While some individual Wikipedians, at least, those who might frequent the Wikipedia Humanities Desk from time to time, may be one source of recommendations for books similar to ones by authors whom you like, alternative queries will likely increase both the precision and recall of such recommendations.

The professional query phrase, well known by librarians, booksellers, and publishers, online and offline alike, is: "what do I read next?" Since 1991, Gale has published "What Do I Read Next?: A Reader's Guide to Current Genre Fiction" and most public and academic libraries of any size have a hard copy, well thumbed by reference librarians, and many public libraries have online access to similar resources, such as FictionConnect. A phone call away for personalized, professional help with no commercial interest, provided by a human voice. Highly recommended. (As is the Aubrey–Maturin series, let me add!)

Algorithmic authorial recommendation engines, incrementally improved by the economic interests of online booksellers, social media Web sites, and search engines include, for a start:

Amazon.com -- provides generic recommendations ("Customers Also Bought Items By") on individual titles and "personalized recommendations" with either only your recent search history or your expressed book likes and dislikes (upon optional, free, registration)

Library Thing allows one to enter up to 200 books for free ($10/year; $25/lifetime for unlimited) and so find similar bookshelves of other readers. Uncanny; "eerily good" matches due, no doubt, to extra selection effort taken by bibliophile catalogers, unlike Amazon's catch-as-catch-can browsing/buying history

Google Sets suggests additional members of any three- to five-item set you might list, e.g. Clive Cussler, Michael Critton, James Rollins, Anthony Horowitz. Not quite there yet for books, but worth keeping an eye on in light of recent commercialization of Google Books. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 04:33, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you like Clive Cussler, may I suggest Brad Thor and Raymond Khoury? Corvus cornix_talk 23:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

governance of france

Where did the French government meet in the late 16th century, particularly that of the city of Paris? The estates general, the governor of Paris, the people responsible for the day to day running of the city, and anyone else. Especially when either there was no king, or none were in the city for a long time. Was there a particular building set aside for such things?

148.197.121.205 (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the late 1500's the Estates General weren't held in one location; they were called more like the Reichstags in the HRE; they were called in various cities around the realm. Estates-General_of_France#The_revival_of_the_States-General_1560-1614 lists Estates-General held in such cities as Orleans, Blois, and sometimes Paris. Most cities had a large civic hall of some sort in which to meet; I am sure each Estates used whatever building was most convenient in the city where it met. During the 1500's French Wars of Religion, things were pretty anarchical on a national level; however France seemed to be able to operate because most of its administrative structure was highly decentralized. Each of the various duchies and counties dealt with their own business, with their own courts and the like. Whatever was going on in Paris had minor influence on local administration. The reforms which centralized France's administration, and removed local control over it, really didn't get started until people like Cardinal Richelieu and Cardinal Mazarin reorganized the French state. The actual administration of the City of Paris during the 1500's was the responsibility of the office of the provost of Paris, a rough equivalent of "Mayor" in the modern parlance, and had jurisdiction over the Paris gendemerie and over local civil courts.--Jayron32 18:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other important things to read are Généralité, which were basically taxation districts of France, and Ancien_Régime_in_France#Administration which covers in general terms how France was administerred. There were national-level administrative offices, but these, like Generalites, had limited application and were largely insigificant compared to local custom and privilege. --Jayron32 18:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Day-to-day governance of Paris emanated from the Hôtel de Ville.--Wetman (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmonaut Dmitry Kondratyev

Is there any picture anywhere on the Internet where that guy can be seen smiling? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 18:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken here's one [6]. 129.234.53.175 (talk) 19:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's his article: Dmitri_Kondratyev. The two photos there do make him appear to be a rather dour individual, and a Google search returns similar expressions. The source of 129's picture, [7], has many pictures of the man, with only one appearing to show a smile. Buddy431 (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To me, he doesn't look "dour", he looks businesslike. Take a look at tintypes from the 1800s. Those are seriously dour. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Writing with sources from multiple languages

When writing a piece (not WP) with sources from multiple languages to an expected bilingual audience, it is appropriate to leave direct quotations in their original language, no matter the language of the piece. My question is are these quotes that differ in language from that of the work left inline, or broken out as separate paragraphs, or if both, when is the difference made? Some links to guides would be appreciated. Thanks, Grsz 11 19:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In academical texts I have seen both used. I guess it depends on the length of the quotation. If it is one or two sentences (or less) then it seems to be left inline, but the use of separate paragraphs for quotes seems to increase with the length of the quotation, although I have also seen examples of very long quotes placed inline. This is just from my own reading experience, unfortunately I don't know of any guide. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's always good to use footnotes to give either the original text or a translation, depending on your expectations of your audience.--Wetman (talk) 20:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The MLA has a specific rule in section 3.7.8[8]. The MLA is a good source to follow. Gx872op (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the MLA? --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Gx872op is referring to the stylebook of the Modern Language Association. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch arrest of WikiLeaks supporters

I read in the news that Dutch police recently arrested two teens for supporting WikiLeaks. Doesn't this violate the Dutch constitution and the ECHR's guarantees of freedom of speech? --70.134.49.69 (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Were they arrested for voicing their opinion, or were they arrested for suspicion of participating in a DDoS attack? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) It sounds like their "support" ~~was illegal~~ is being made example of (independent of its being "support for Wikileaks"?): "Following the arrest in the Netherlands of two teenagers involved in last week's distributed denial of service attacks against MasterCard, lawyers tell young hackers to be aware of the law." – Deutche Welle WikiDao ☯ (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't say or imply that their behaviour was illegal - we do have a BLP policy! It's OK to say they were arrested on suspicion of something, but absolutely not OK to say that they were acting illegally. DuncanHill (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I did give a source which makes pointed reference to the "illegality" of their alleged actions, though. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it should be noted that the line between "freedom of speech" and "unprotected helping of hostile nations" is blurry in most countries. Nowhere is the freedom of speech absolute, much less on security issues. Different countries have different histories that let them draw that line in different places, for better or worse. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the concept of "unprotected helping of hostile nations" is a peculiarly American concept. The Netherlands is not at war with whatever imagined enemy of the US suc a concept refers to.

I think I understand what you are alluding to when you talk about "different histories" - I believe I saw that concept of an American paranoia due to its history of invading other countries well illustrated in an animated sequence in a film by your renowned filmmaker, Michael Moore. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that "sounds like" is as good a legal shield as "allegedly". —Tamfang (talk) 21:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]