Humanities desk
< October 21	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 23 >

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.

October 22

16th/17th century French book describing medieval Paris

Resolved

I am trying to remember the name of a book, written in the 16th or 17th century, that describes the history and architecture of Paris (or perhaps all of France). The name, however, has escaped me, and I can find neither it nor the authorities that describe it as Hugo's source. Can anyone help me?

Identifying details that I remember:

The book is considered to be the source of Victor Hugo's detailed description of medieval Paris in The Hunchback of Notre Dame.
The author has (considering his era) an unusually philo-Semitic description of the history of the Jews in France
The author was familiar with many historical Jewish works (including Shalshelet ha-Qabbalah and Zemah David), apparently from their Hebrew originals
The book has been digitized and is (or was) freely available online on a French website

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 01:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Histoires et recherches des Antiquités de la Ville de Paris by Henri Sauval? He is actually mentioned in the text, and seems to have a lot to say about the Jews. It's on Google Books and archive.org. It's also on the Bibliothèque nationale website, which may be the French site you were thinking of. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's it—thank you very much! (I accessed it through this site, which is in fact linked to at Henri Sauval#External links. His history of the Jews is in Volume 2, Book 10, pages 509–532. (For an interesting example of Sauval's Jewish history being included in Hugo's work, see page 526, as well as page 552.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was partially mistaken with respect to the date: Sauval lived in the 17th century, but his work was only published in 1724. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 03:13, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to Joanne Jacobs?

Once upon a time, the San Jose Mercury News had a brilliant columnist by the name of Joanne Jacobs. Sharp but clever wit, but I don't recall that she was ever mean. The only sensible political commentator attached to a Bay Area newspaper that I can even think of. (At the time, the SJMN did a reasonable job of keeping news separate from editorials; they have since become a stridently partisan paper in the European mold, which does have the advantage of a certain directness, I suppose.)

But I haven't seen anything from her in years, and Google has not been very much help. Anyone know what she's doing, and why she quit what she was so good at? --Trovatore (talk) 06:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She comes up on a LinkedIn search with a 23-year history at that paper, so I'm pretty sure it's her. She has a website at www.joannejacobs.com and blogs and writes on education. - Karenjc (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Here she is, and here too.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 07:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both. I suppose I saw some of those hits when searching. I'd just like to see more of the stuff she used to do. Oh well. --Trovatore (talk) 01:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a good explanation of literacy problems

Hi all, I saw on the news that an Australian student completed year 12 without knowing how to read or write. Does anyone know how this can actually happen? References would be great, but are not essential for contributing, because they might be hard to find. Anecdotal answers would be more than welcome. Speculation that involves some evidence, and some speculative gap-filling, would be quite ok. Pure speculation should be avoided, if you could be so kind. Thanks in advance, IBE (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in an historical case from the U.S. Dexter Manley is an interesting case study, he was basically shuffled along through the education system even though he could neither read nor write because he was a good athlete, and he performed well on various schools football teams. The Wikipedia article only touches on it briefly, but the phenomenon in general in the U.S., and Manley in particular, have been covered in depth by many reliable sources. For example here is a 1989 article on the case from the New York Times. I know you are looking for Australia specifically, but this at least gives you a related case from the U.S. --Jayron32 16:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) This is pretty good - funny, relevant, and interesting; a good start for the thread. The only thing wrong is that the explanation is too good, so it wouldn't apply to many cases, where I think the same thing happens without a special motive on the part of the institution. I don't think the Australian student had such compensating advantages, because I would expect them to have been mentioned in the news story. That is far from certain, but likely all the same. So any examples of less talented people who could trip around the system without being tripped up by it would also be welcome. Examples from first world countries strike me as quite relevant by analogy. IBE (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Social promotion. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In cases where it's not in the school's interest to admit that they failed to teach a student, they will often cover up that fact. Tests are supposed to tell us things like this, but there have been cases of teachers correcting answers on tests so they look better: [1]. StuRat (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IBE, can you provide a link to the news story you heard? There are various hits for people finishing school who cannot properly read or write (whatever that means) or are "functionally illiterate", but your question makes it sound as if this person couldn't do these things at all. That would suggest a massive cover-up on the part of the education authorities, which continued every year for about 12 years. I struggle to believe this. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, see [2] and go to the show The Project, Monday 21 October, 32:00 (main story), 33:15 (Mark Haddrick, barely able to read his own name after year 12). IBE (talk) 18:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. Here's a direct link to the story: [3]. There could be various factors as to why a particular person has special challenges with reading and writing, dyslexia and vision problems being the most obvious. But for him to be advanced in grade year after year for 12 years without being able to do any of the work says to me there's something seriously broken with the system. How come every other kid had to sit many, many written tests, and had to demonstrate their ability to read aloud, and had to demonstrate they could comprehend what they were reading - but he always got let off? How come his parents weren't consulted about his difficulties? (Or maybe they were, and maybe they gave up too.) To me, this is child educational abuse, and in terms of ongoing impact on his life it's on a par with child sexual abuse. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first number on that page makes me extremely suspicious of its reliability. 44% have a literacy level below 3? Neither the study nor the definitions of the literacy levels are identified, but it's simply not possible that 44% of Australians can't read medication labels or road signs. --Bowlhover (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found the study this number refers to. The way it is presented in the article makes me a bit suspicious of its intent. The OECD study [4] shows that the results for Australia are consistent with or better that the remaining OECD countries. The definitions used [5] show that level 3 is rather demanding and has more to do with reading comprehension than what we typically understand as "literacy".No longer a penguin (talk) 08:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP wrote that the student "completed year 12", not that the student "passed year 12". The system in the state of Victoria, Australia allows that. HiLo48 (talk) 11:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same is true in NSW, where a number of students complete study without matriculating or sitting the Higher School Certificate. In particular, a large number of people with intellectual disabilities successfully complete schooling without having attempted a HSC or matriculation. Australia's grade system isn't comprised of a pass/fail test system or curriculum. In NSW it is a continuous curriculum of expectations, punctuated by two schools certificates examinations after the leaving age. Fifelfoo (talk) 20:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Why the Extent of English Illiteracy Is So Well-hidden.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article seems to be about American illiteracy - not English illiteracy!! Alansplodge (talk) 23:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the consequences...

What would be the consequences to America's foreign policy & national security if the U.S were to default on its debt in the future? -- Willminator (talk · contribs) 18:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this was discussed at some length a couple or three weeks ago. You might want to check the archives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, let me get out my crystal ball... This is the reference desk, not the prediction desk. μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I went to the archives, but there was nothing about any impact a default would have on U.S foreign policy/national security. I'm pretty sure there are sources and alarming predictions out there. I just haven't found anything detailed yet. Where can I at least go and find this information if no one is willing to direct me to some answers? And predictions that can be backed by other sources are also valid assumptions for the Reference Desk. Willminator (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm pretty sure that almost this exact same question was asked, either just before or just after the shutdown occurred - and it was met with similar cautions about crystal ball. [Although I can't find it just now.] No one can say for sure what would happen. However, there are any number of news sources citing experts on what could happen. Have you looked for this subject in Google? I would stick with editorialists connected with relatively neutral news sources, such as CNN and BBC. Many pundits were predicting a potential "domino effect" on the world's economy, and a downturn in America's standing in the eyes of world. That kind of thing certainly could impact foreign policy and national security in some way. But you would need to consult those pundits' writings to learn why that domino effect could happen... and what its consequences could be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The US effectively defaulted in 1933, and had previously defaulted several times in the past if one includes all bonds which were not honoured in the past -- with no particular ill-effects (we disallowed the "in gold" clauses in all contracts and bonds in 1833). A short default is not really the same as refusing to honour bonds or notes, which is what some pundits seemed to think was the case. As the biggest "non US government" holder of those bonds and notes is, IIRC, the Federal Reserve [6] (about 2 trillion dollars - or about the total securities held by the two largest foreign countries) and SSA holds nearly five trillion dollars of the debt - the scare reports are pretty far off the mark. Unless, of course, one thinks the SSA and Fed would participate in a panic? I suspect that neither the Fed nor SSA would panic at that point, and all other bonds could be kept current with minimal effort. But scaring people is the standard procedure for politicians. Collect (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While that may be standard procedure for pols, most everyone seemed to be in agreement that we're better off not having to find out what a default would do. The OP's question is about foreign policy and national security, and that covers a lot of ground. I don't recall those subjects coming up very much, compared with the potential economic consequences. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't so theoretical since the US has defaulted at least twice before. See a USA Today story here and a Huff post story here. Also it is important to note that constitutionally all debt payments are paid first with the ~~millions~~hundreds of billions in automatic custom fees/income taxes/other fees collected every month, so the only way a "default" would take place is either the Executive would give an unconstitutional order not to pay those first or an Executive branch official would make a major mistake.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that in the Constitution? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 actual defaults aren't in the constitution, but if you mean the debt being constitutionally obligated it would be the 14th Amendment. That was in the news the last 3 weeks ad nauseam for both "teams".^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 20:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're referring to Section 4: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section 5 might provide guidance as well.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Section 5 authorizes Congress to pass appropriate legislation. That's the can-of-worms found in some of the amendments beyond the Bill of Rights block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be one interpretation of the section, which is why a news search in the last 3 weeks and back in 1979, 1995 etc. turn up so much colorful language and not just between Republicans and Democrats.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 21:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how there could be more than one interpretation of "Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." The can-of-worms comes in where the word "appropriate" is concerned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Applied to both, besides in the U.S. there are at least as many as '9 opinions' that come from a marble palace, Perry v US with the 14th. Interparty splits were evident in the recent write ups with different interpretations of how Congress enforces power or if the 14th lets the Executive enforce more then just debt payments passed by former Congresses.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:15, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Perry notes, the 14th amendment clause merely confirmed an older Constitutional prohibition of default from the 5th amendment, because bonds are considered property. There have been many (generally unanimous) rulings that such government obligations, which include but are not restricted to bonds, are constitutionally protected, and so Congress does not have the power to repudiate them. Except for oddities of the sort that one would expect in centuries of existence, the USA has never nominally defaulted on its debt. The foreign policy & national security consequences are hard to say. It would rightly make the US look ridiculous in the world, and the natural, immediate economic effect of such a needless and irrational act would be very bad, comparable to 1929 or 2008. After that, who knows?John Z (talk) 05:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A significant point in that amendment was to repudiate any Confederate debt. Of course, as with the basic Constitution calling slaves "certain persons" instead of slaves, the amendment doesn't advertise the Confederacy by directly naming it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Buffett, who is primarily an investor and not so much a politician, has some interesting things to say about the general subject.[7] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:13, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before I forget, I found these browsing this question on Google: