Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 October 27

< Wikipedia:Reference desk | Archives | Humanities
Humanities desk
< October 26 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 28 >
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 27

edit

Founder of Wikipedia

edit

Who is the genius founder of Wikipedia ? Rishabh Somany —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnujSomany (talk • contribs) 07:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try the Wikipedia page.Popcorn II (talk) 09:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a slightly controversial issue, but according to Wikipedia, it was founded by Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. Jimmy Wales argues that Larry Sanger shouldn't be considered a founder, but the reliable sources suggest otherwise so he is described as a founder in Wikipedia (our article on Larry discusses the controversy). --Tango (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even Jimbo himself admitted more recently that he should not be considered the sole founder, and time was he openly called Larry the co-founder. However, I notice that a recent paragraph of comment from him in The Guardian called him "the founder" again, although the article it was attached to had several ridiculous errors regarding Wikipedia (such as getting the date it was opened to public editing out by 3 years). I tend to see it as not controversial at all: it's just that Jimbo and Larry fell out. 86.144.144.110 (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has he? I haven't seen any such admission. He usually just avoids the topic these days. --Tango (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justices of the UK Supreme Court

edit

Does anyone know how many of the justices are Jewish, or have Jewish roots/connections? I've identified Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers [1] and (by the look of his parents' names) Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and wondered if there were any others. Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury, who recently stepped down, is very much Jewish, of course... Anyway, thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 10:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Blagojevich gag order?

edit

Interviewed on The Daily Show last month, Rod Blagojevich said that federal prosecutors had obtained a court order prohibiting him from quoting his wiretap tapes. He said that his lawyers had heard all the tapes, and he had heard some of them, and he was allowed to paraphrase the tapes but not quote them directly, even for use in his own impeachment trial. This question was raised on Talk:Rod Blagojevich corruption charges but I am still wondering whether the court order was independently reported in the news media, and whether the court's reasons for making the order were published online. --Mathew5000 (talk) 12:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been reported quite widely, as searching Google News would show. The order is apparently because the court is worried about Blagojevich influencing potential jurors and therefore they've banned him from discussing evidence relating to the trial.[2] --Lesleyhood (talk) 17:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That article you linked to is referring to a court hearing from this month; his appearance on The Daily Show was last month, and he was apparently referring to a court order rendered in 2008 or early 2009 (before his impeachment conviction). --Mathew5000 (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SABAM and the freedom of panorama

edit

Is the following sentence true: “SABAM does not recognize the freedom of panorama”? --88.78.239.155 (talk) 13:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(For those who are clueless as I am, SABAM is apparently something of a Belgian equivalent to the RIAA.) --Mr.98 (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but "freedom of panorama"? Does this mean Panama? Or is this about public domain music? DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm almost certain it means this sort. I think it is probably true; there is no freedom of panorama in Belgium as a whole, and I can imagine SABAM being against the introduction of such a law. To expand on Mr. 98, our article mentions that "The members of SABAM are not only composers, poets and musicians text, but also writers, poets, artists, publishers, visual artists, architects, designers, choreographers, photographers, film and television directors, etc.", the latter groups more interested in the legal concept of FoP.- Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 14:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which Belgian building has to do with this section? --88.77.252.209 (talk) 15:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having to guess what you mean, but if it helps, SABAM includes architects, and they design buildings. In some places, the building can't be photographed without the permission of the architect. Freedom of panorama usually goes against this. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 17:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody is just going to have to ask them. Some architects would be all for "freedom of panorama" and some, against it. Our answers so far have just been speculation. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Atomium in Brussels? --88.77.252.209 (talk) 18:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you may have read Atomium#Worldwide copyright claims shows that SABAM are attempting to enforce the copyright of the architect(s) involved. Basically, they are saying that people have to ask the architect before photographing it. Since the architect(s) is/are part of SABAM, SABAM is trying to prevent the use of pictures of it. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 18:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would suspect that SABAM doesn't take a position on freedom of panorama—the question is whether the local copyright laws recognize it, and SABAM is interested in enforcing said laws to the maximum degree possible (as is their purpose as an organization). Whether they have lobbied for it or against it, I do not know—I suspect you would need someone who was versed in Belgian copyright disputes to know, and there are probably no such people on this particular Reference Desk. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identify this book

edit

When I was in early elementary school (about 15 years ago), I remember reading a book where a lady has a cat named Sam who doesn't like fish, so when Sam left to join a group of cats in another building the lady used the fish to separate Sam from the rest of the cats. What was this book titled? 128.237.248.254 (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aunt Eater Loves a Mystery. —Wayward Talk 10:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MIT's budget

edit

Does anybody knows what part of MIT's budget come from governmental grants and what part based on endowments?--Gilisa (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://web.mit.edu/facts/financial.html is a starting point, although "research revenues" is not split into government vs. private sources. -- Coneslayer (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Napoleon's relative

edit

Napoleon Bonaparte gave most of his siblings, and stepchildren title or arrange good marriage for them. Did he have any Ramolino or Bonaparte cousins from his mother or father side who he bestowed on royal titles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.190.22.26 (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One instance, at least: Comte d'Ornano is not a royal title, but it is one of the French Empire, and Philippe Antoine d'Ornano was Bonaparte's second cousin.... - Nunh-huh 01:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washington, D.C.

edit

I have a question for my English project (and that is a thing which is not bad to be found on an Washington, D.C. article). Does District of Columbia means District of the CDP Columbia, Maryland?
Greetings from Mostar and thanks,--77.221.8.180 (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the U.S. capital is not in Maryland. The capital district was given the name "Columbia", which also appears in various other places in the U.S. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It refers to Columbia, a poetic name for the United States (e.g. CBS is the "Columbia Broadcasting System"). This is mentioned in the Washington, D.C. article, History section, paragraph 3: "On September 9, 1791, the federal city was named in honor of George Washington, and the district was named the Territory of Columbia, Columbia being a poetic name for the United States in use at that time." -- 128.104.112.179 (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(multiple ec)The Columbia MD article you linked to indicates it was barely a gleam in anybody's eye until the 1960's. Washington DC was in existence for a few years prior to that. So what do you think? --LarryMac | Talk 20:46, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another point - it's called the District of Colombia, because the word "District" is used in Article One of the United States Constitution, which provides that the capital of the USA is to be in an area that's not administered by any individual State. It doesn't just mean "the vicinity of", although I can see why that might be confusing. Tevildo (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article 1 does actually not require the creation of a capital district; it just allows Congress and the relevant states to agree to create such a distrinct, and specifies that Congress alone has legislative power if it happens. --Anonymous, 00:00 UTC, October 28, 2009.
The key part of of the "D.C." part, is that it means that it legally does not technically exist in any particular state. It is meant to be thus totally independent from the local squabbles of states, and not privileging any one state. (In practice, it finds itself today with almost no political representation at all, which has its downsides, to be sure.) So it is not really in Maryland, or Delaware, or Virginia, the three states which surround it. It's not in any state. "D.C." is a unique political entity in the U.S., and "Washington" is its sole city (well, they are technically one and the same at this point, but I think it works fine on a conceptual level). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters, Delaware is not actually adjacent to DC. --Anon, 00:01 UTC, October 28, 2009.
Ah, yeah. That's right. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, while the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit hears cases from the surrounding states of Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, North Carolina and South Carolina, there's a separate United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, covering just the non-state of Washington, D.C. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2009_October_27&oldid=1146482240"