Humanities desk
< January 22	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 24 >

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.

January 23

French laws regarding police, riots, and crowd sizes.

Are there any French laws governing police responses to riots (based on crowd size)? Also, do larger crowds necessarily require authorization for more manpower? Thank you in advance for your help. Vidtharr (talk) 02:44, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can start with the article on this matter in the French-language wikipedia [1]. It points to article 431-3 of the French Penal Code (see here [2]) which governs public gatherings and how they can be dispersed. I'm not sure if any of this information is available in English, however. For example, the interwiki link from the French article redirects to something completely different in English. --Xuxl (talk) 09:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To continue, most public gatherings in France, e.g. demonstrations, marches and outdoor concerts require a permit from the local préfecture de police or its equivalent. To quote from the French wiki article "Manifestation" [3]: "En France, les manifestations sur la voie publique sont soumises à l'obligation d'une déclaration préalable indiquant le but de la manifestation, le lieu, la date et l'heure du rassemblement et l'itinéraire projeté. Les autorités peuvent demander aux organisateurs des modifications de parcours ou d'horaire. Elles peuvent interdire une manifestation si elles la jugent de nature à troubler l'ordre public ou si ses mots d'ordre sont contraires à la loi, mais ces interdictions sont rares." (In France, demonstrations on public roadways need to be signalled in advance to authorities. Organizers have to indicate its purpose, location, date and time of the gathering and the proposed route to be followed. Authorities can ask organizers to change the time or route. They can prohibit a demonstration if they consider that it may disrupt public order or if its slogans are unlawful, but such bans are rare. - my quick translation). --Xuxl (talk) 10:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hohenzollernsche Lande

Why did Prussia annex the states of the Hohenzollernsche Lande in 1849? Our Province of Hohenzollern article says that the princes handed over sovereignty to Prussia; Prussia doesn't mention it at all; Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen says only that "it lost its independence" after the prince was deposed in the 1848 revolutions and his successor turned to Prussia for aid; Hohenzollern-Hechingen says that the prince sold it to Prussia after the 1848 revolutions; and Kingdom of Prussia says simply that it was an aftereffect of the previous year's revolutions. Did King Friedrich Wilhelm simply want to gain extra territory by pressuring his cousins to abdicate? Did the princes prefer selling out and abdicating over becoming constitutional monarchs? Did the princes run out of money fighting the revolutions? Something else entirely? Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some details on the revolution in de:Revolution in Sigmaringen. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Origin of work

Aristotle and Plato, in ancient Greece, stated that reason most people worked "in order that the minority, the elite, might engage in pure exercise of the mind — art, philosophy, politics."

So, here's the information I can gather: as the elite apparently performed "mental exercises", the majority felt that someone had to do physical work. So the majority started working, as a result.

So, taking into account the information above, was the concept of work (as in jobs, employment) invented as a means to give the world's people something to do? I know people work in order to earn money, but the thing I'm thinking about is the reason why the need to earn money led to the requirement of working. One could say the reason why was that work was originally the unpaid laboring hunter-gatherers had to perform for subsistence. I don't think this reason holds up, though. Because it fails to explain why jobs like, say, playwrights for instance, came into existence. And hunter-gatherers didn't need to write plays to survive. They needed food and water. Rebel Yeh (talk) 07:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you said, originally people had to "work" just to survive. That included hunting, gathering, making tools, cooking, building shelter, making clothes, etc. There would have been barter, for example, where one person better at making weapons might have traded a weapon to a hunter for some food. At some point money came about as a means to enhance bartering. For example, if the hunter needed the weapon first in order to go get the food, some type of a token (say a seashell) could have been used to mean "I owe this guy food". Over time these tokens took on a value of their own. By the time of the ancient Greeks, money was in wide usage, and you needed to work to earn it, in order to buy food, shelter, etc., unless you were lucky enough to be born into the ruling class. I think those philosophers had a rather self-centered view of the world, where they saw everything as existing solely for their benefit. From the POV of the working class, they were working for themselves, not to support some rich "parasites". StuRat (talk) 08:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was work invented in order to give people something to do? No, I do not believe so. Labour begins with a combination of desire and apparent scarcity (although perhaps, as well, some madness could cause someone to work). Almost everyone desires. Some few people suffering either from schizophrenia or a major depressive episode may at times have no desire, and they may be in states of catatonia. Such people do not perform labour, exactly because they have no desire. So desire is quite natural. Now, if there were no scarcity, then desires would be fulfilled without labour. But because there is scarcity, one must labour in order to fulfil desires. So why are there playwrights? Because people desire plays and there is a scarcity of plays. You may be interested in division of labour, however. See [4] for a discussion of Durkheim's The Division of Labor in Society--Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a citation for the quotation in the OP, that apparently claims Plato and Aristotle wrote the exact same thing. I could perhaps believe Plato had said such a thing, but that would not necessarily make it true. Plato said a lot of things about "ideal" conditions (as in his The Republic) which was merely wishful thinking rather than a description of the actual conditions of his day. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The quotation is from Adriano Tilgher, Work: What It Has Meant to Men Throughout the Ages as reported here, and the text is searchable here.

First, note how Tilgher reports: Plato and Aristotle are saying that this is done to solve social problems, not that this is the actual origin of all work. But certainly such a sentiment exists in both: For Aristotle see NE 1094b, where he says that political science subordinates other jobs and prescribes "which ones each class in the city should learn, and how far". Then see Pol. 1252a: "Self preservation is the basis for the natural division between ruler and subject. For the capacity for rational foresight makes one a natural ruler and natural master, and the capacity to execute foresight by bodily labor makes another a subject and a natural slave" (Fine & Irwin translation). For Plato, see Rep. 590c-d: "the condition of the manual worker is despised...when the best part is naturally weak in someone, it can't rule the beasts within him but can only serve them and learn to flatter them...Therefore, to insure that someone like that is ruled by something similar to what rules the best person[read: the philosopher], we say that he ought to be the slave of that best person who has a divine ruler within himself." (Grube/Reeve translation). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Work came before money, not the other way round. People work in order to have enough to survive. Money is simply a tool to make goods and labour more interchangeable. Why would you think otherwise? Jobs which do not provide the community with food, shelter, or other things directly related to survival arise out of living together in communities. Whereas in a pre-urban culture stories might be told by anyone around the campfire, a culture which has built a town might think it worthwhile to pay the best storyteller to come to a designated place in the market and tell stories there, so that many more people could hear the best stories. Other jobs arise directly from urbanisation; a rural culture has no need of a sewer-repair-crew, but an urbanised one will find one very useful. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What the OP is asking is not origin of work, it is origin of division of labor. This paper provides an interesting insight. --PlanetEditor (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does have an article on Division of labour; in many ways the transition from hunter gatherer or transhumant societies to settled agriculture marked the earliest divisions of labor and the creation of different types of work. Neolithic Revolution is the moment in time when this happened. --Jayron32 17:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may find the following text edifying and tangentially useful: Russell, In Praise of Idleness. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 18:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A poem that is at first gentle but then becomes transfigured, dissonant.

Hello.

I need a poem that fits the description that I gave in the headline. It should be gentle at first, but then, it should turn the same subject of its gentleness into something darker, as if some sort of transfiguration occured. Any length will suffice. On its language, it would be best for it to be written in Italian, English, Spanish or German. Any type of verse (if any at all) will suffice. It would be best if its subject was about love, but any other subject would do it, should none concerning love could be found.

Thanks in advance.

P.S. For the response, either linking me to a page where I can acces the poem, writing the poem itself (or a fragment), or giving me the name of the poem and its author should do the trick.157.253.186.13 (talk) 15:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A poem by Heinrich Heine comes to mind. He describes a bucolic scene, and the last line (I wish he'd shoot me dead) comes as a bit of shock. On the other hand, the first line hints that not everything is well, so it might not entirely fit your requirements. --Wrongfilter (talk) 15:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You did not list French among the languages, but "Les Djinns" by Victor Hugo [5] is a famous example of what you're looking for. It starts off very quiet, builds to a peak of violence in the middle stanzas, and then calms down again. It's not about love but describes a wind storms that locals attribute to supernatural forces. --Xuxl (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think the perfect example is To His Coy Mistress by Andrew Marvell -- which also happens to be one of the best poems in the English language. Looie496 (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a poem in the form of song lyrics, we have You Oughta Know by Alanis Morrisette. It starts out nice but then turns quite nasty: [6]. StuRat (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With those criteria, I'd say Richard Cory by Edwin Arlington Robinson, or (kind of) Der Erlkönig. Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 20:47, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For gentle to transfigured - Goethe's Ganymed. If fragmented counts as 'dissonant', it has that quality too. Paul B (talk) 20:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tarantella by Hilaire Belloc. Starts out as a pleasant remembrance of a dancing girl in a Spanish tavern, with a catchy metre that resembles the titular dance. By the end, the inn's been washed away and everybody is dead.. 94.197.239.129 (talk) 13:11, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and Aragon a torrent at the door. Never more, Miranda, never more. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

French Probate

Am looking for assistance on an "Intestate" death of a cousin of mine who lived in France? How do I go about or find;- 1) the french equivalent of the United Kingdom Treasury Department "Bona Vacantia"; 2) find out who the handling "Notaire" (solicitor) is; 3) find out what City or Town he died in? Any help would be good

Joegush (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How did you find out he died ? That source ought to know where he died, which is the starting point. StuRat (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Found out via a french "Heir Hunter" who sent me a letter of confirmation etc (also have no doubt in relation to their authenticity etc), who is giving absolutely nothing away until I "sign the papers". Joegush (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you don't have to go through a self-appointed heir hunter. Quite likely there is a French government website with all the advice you need; there certainly is for property law. You could phone or email the French embassy with your questions. I've been trying to Google for an answer for you, but can't find a good search string. An obvious thing is to Google your relative's name, look on Facebook, Friends Reunited, etc., in case you can come up with a commune of residence. As soon as you know the place of residence or death, contact the Mairie/Hotel de Ville, by letter or email. They could be very helpful. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, a lot of people die intestate in France. Generally speaking, inheritance is through direct family descent, to the children and grandchildren. Are you sure it is likely that you will be an heir, and that the heir hunters are genuine? Itsmejudith (talk) 15:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya itsmejudith, many thanks for the suggestions but, have already been down those roads! French Embassy in Edinburgh is not much help (maybe just trying to "protect" french "business"?). They gave me a "suggestion" but, to be honest this led nowehere. I have also been in touch with another "suggestion" but, that basically led nowhere as well? I am really going round in circles, incidenatly, who/what is the Mairie/Hotel de Ville????? Is there a contact email or web site for this? On your last suggestion "are they genuine" etc? I have "no reason" to doubt the authenticity as I do have family on the Ille de Sein (long story WWII with my mother meeting/marrying a Free French Sub-Mariner with myself never having met my father, for whatever reason(s) my mother and he seperated, however he did have brother(s)/sister etc). My mother also never spoke much about him? So contacting that side of the family would not;- 1) go down too well; 2) I do not speak French at all. All leads to frustration as I cannot move forward. This may well be a "minor inheritance" so am wary about incurring "high(ish)" costs? If the fees etc were "reasonable" there would be no problem whatsoever, (Dilemma)!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joegush (talk • contribs) 10:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC) Sorry itsmejudith, Forgot to mention I had tried to get in touch with a "Kimberly Powell", meant to be American/French specialist in genealogy, but, as yet she has not replied to me? Maybe just too soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joegush (talk • contribs) 10:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "Mairie/Hôtel de ville" is the city hall for the place where your relative lived. You mentioned Ile-de-Sein above. If that is where your relative lived, that commune's city hall has a web site with contact numbers here [7]. It's a really tiny place, so there are good chances that the person who answers the phone will know of your relative (but the language barrier may be a problem). I notice on that same web site that the place's total population fewer than 200, and that deaths have been significantly outnumbering births in the last three decades, leading to a population crash. Good luck. --Xuxl (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History of processed carbohydrate

I want a brief overview on the history of processed carbohydrate. --PlanetEditor (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest processing of carbohydrates is probably bread, Wikipedia has a History of bread which is pretty good. --Jayron32 17:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also porridges and gruels. Beer. See History of sugar for another carbohydrate that needs a lot of processing. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also Pasta#History. Alansplodge (talk) 19:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Same articles in a different media

i dont know if there is any term for this issue. I am runing a study that shows there are some same articles in a different media. How and why it happens, how to resolve. As well as I need some examples. I really do not know where to find about this. In my country this problem is not small even though there is no survey on this issue. I do not know for foreign countries. Thats why I am asking you. Thank you for helping. Please give me anything that may relate the topic. About- Same and very similar artcles in a same week. Many daily newspappers have very similar informations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.70.46.201 (talk) 18:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers have articles with text in common because much of the text of newspapers is written by the wire services like Associated Press, United Press International, and Reuters. That is, newspapers reprint content written by one of those services. --Jayron32 18:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking about plagiarism or, for example, articles on a book and a film made from the book. StuRat (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syndication, especially print syndication, might be relevant too. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW the IP looks up to Mongolia. Nil Einne (talk) 03:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outgoing Pres. Clinton briefs Pres. Geo Bush about al-quaeda

Please advise about that breif. Did Geo. Bush receive any warnings about an upcoming attack prior to 9/11/2001?21:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)LaniMein (talk)LaniMein

It is likely unknown. The details of such security briefs are classified, and it is likely that very few people outside of those actually present know the answer to that. It certainly isn't likely to be public knowledge. --Jayron32 22:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There were plenty of mentions of a general threat from planes to the WTC right after the '93 bombing and in the years after, as well as plenty of mentions in the press (The New York Post) of chatter about a coming major terrorist attack in August of 2001. Unfortunately, Googling those facts is almost impossible. But none of this was a surprise to anyone paying attention. There's also the FBI agent (or was it CIA?) who had warned of such an attack and who died on 9/11. There was a History Channel documentary about him, back when the History Channel did history. μηδείς (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, see Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Clarke was a Clinton-era holdover who found it very difficult to even schedule meetings with incoming W. Bush high-level appointees before 9/11, in order to discuss terrorism threat matters with them. John P. O'Neill was the Yemen ship-attack investigator who died on 9/11... AnonMoos (talk) 23:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The usual way in which the President gets intelligence updates is through what is called the President's Daily Brief (PDB). On August 6, 2001, President Bush's PDB warned that "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US", and mentioned hijacking as a possibility. It did not warn of an imminent attack, however. There were also, apparently, earlier briefs in 2001 that warned of an al Qaeda attack on the United States. The White House apparently did nothing to act upon these warnings. You can read more PDB's relating to Bin Laden here, if you are interested. It is a complex situation; there was nothing that said, "an attack is going to happen tomorrow and it's going to work like this." But there were quite a lot of attempts from the CIA and the counter-terrorism officials to get the White House's attention on this matter, and they were, as far as anyone can tell, pretty much ignored. The best one can say for the Bush administration is that they did not treat it as a very high priority concern, possibly because the amount of actionable intelligence available to them was limited. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is that there were so many threats that they didn't know which one(s) to take seriously. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the entire point of the CIA preparing a Daily Brief is to tell the President which ones to take seriously. Read the NYT article I posted if you want to contribute meaningfully to the conversation, rather than just making up whatever comes to mind. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attacking a respondent in front of the OP is bad form. If you want to contribute meaningfully in the future, you should refrain from that activity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, grow up already. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You first. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason it's called the daily brief, not the only-when-we're-absolutely-sure brief. Every day, the president gets tons of contradictory information saying that this or that is a threat, or this or that group of people is planning to do something. CEOs of large companies face the same problem, albeit not with terrorist threats. It's easy for critics to point at people, with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, and wonder why they ignored a certain piece of information, not realizing that they also ignored hundreds of similar pieces of information that turned out to be unhelpful. In this case, the intelligence in question is "bin Laden is planning to attack...some day, some where, using some method", as if that doesn't apply to every terrorist group for every moment of their existence. Not only that, the CIA had warned for months that an attack could be "imminent", even though intelligence suggested the timeframe was "flexible". --140.180.244.202 (talk) 07:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How many Secrtary of States have been grilled after an attack on Americans in foreign countries

How many Secrtary of States have been grilled after an attack on Americans in foreign countries. Was Pres. Ronald Regan's Sec of State, George Shultz grilled by U.S.Congress after 241 US service men were killed in an attack on the Marines in Beruit Octember 1983? Was Pres.G.W.Bush's Sec of State,Colin Powell grilled by U.S.Congress after 9/11/2001LaniMein (talk) 22:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing an important detail. The Benghazi attack was on a US embassy, and those embassies are run by the US State Department, which is led by the US Secretary of State. As such, it was her responsibility to ensure that the workers there were safe. Of course, even with all reasonable precautions, determined attackers, particularly suicide bombers, might still get in. However, in this case, the security precautions seemed grossly inadequate, given the threats in the region. This is why Hillary Clinton is being "grilled". The Secretary of States are neither responsible for US Marine barracks nor airline security, so questioning them about those attacks would be pointless. Of course, there have been other attacks on US embassies, most notably the Iran Hostage Crisis, so you might want to ask if the Secretary of State was "grilled" in each of those cases. StuRat (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Secretaries of State. Multiple secretaries. One state. --Jayron32 22:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or Secrtaries of State. There have been seemingly countless times the US has been caught flatfooted by these kinds of attacks. This was only a recent example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This wasn't merely a recent example. It was the first U.S. Ambassador killed in 33 years and apparently one of only six assassinated ever. A rather unusual event. Rmhermen (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the ambassador being killed was unusual. The fact of us being attacked by radical Islamists was not unusual. But we always seem surprised when it happens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:42, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The US does not now, nor has it ever had an embassy in Benghazi. That was a consulate. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]