Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 December 26

= December 26 =

Nebuchadnezzar II a Bahraini?
Commons:Category:Nebuchadrezzar II is a subcategory of Commons:Category:Bahrani people. Is this a correct categorisation? Here at Wikipedia, his article says nothing about Bahrain. He appears in the List of Bahranis, but only in a list of lists of rulers; many of the rulers in that list are likely foreigners who conquered Bahrain, and although I'm not very familiar with the Neo-Babylonian Empire, I wouldn't at all be surprised if he reigned over Bahrain. Moreover, I can't find anything on Google that relates him to Bahrain. Nyttend (talk) 02:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Apparently, one legend of the origins of the Bahraini people is that they are descendants of Arabs who were captured by Nebuchadrezzar and taken to Mesopotamia and then they escaped and fled south to modern day Bahrain. I suppose this legend might have been transfered into the birthplace of Nebuchadrezzar, but I can find no actual detail about where he was supposedly born.  meltBanana  15:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Bah(raini)? Humbug. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hanseatic Republic
What/Where is the Hanseatic Republic? I don't think it is the same as the Hanseatic League, as the Hanseatic League came to an end around the 17th Century while the Hanseatic Republic adopted a treaty with Siam on October 10, 1860.

Thank you.


 * —— Clumsily   •   Talk  |  2010.  12.26 , 17:44 hours (ICT)


 * This article from 1828 names three Hanseatic Republics: The Hanseatic Republics of Hamburg, Lübeck and Bremen. This suggests that it was official names for those three independent merchant towns (each a republic) in Northern Germany that had formerly been members of the Hanseatic League. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I see now, although uncited, that the article Hanseatic League contains this sentence: "Only nine members attended the last formal meeting in 1669 and only three (Lübeck, Hamburg and Bremen) remained as members until its final demise in 1862.[citation needed]". So it was not just a historical leftover in the title, the Hanseatic League actually existed until 1862, and that is why the official name of those cities included the "Hanseatic" appellation. Very interesting, I did not know that. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hamburg retains the Hanseatic name to this day (Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg). Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As do Bremen (state) and Lübeck. Several other northern German cities that were once members of the Hanseatic league have in recent years also adopted the "Hansestadt" label, though only Hamburg, Bremen, and Lübeck remained independent city-states until the process of German unification began in 1866.  Marco polo (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hamburg and Bremen remain federal states to this day - along with Berlin, the three are the city-states among the German Bundesländer. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Name That Poet/Poem, If You Like.
He had a poem, not his last, that he wished to be printed last in any collection of his poetry. I read it once, it was beutiful, and delt with themes of death, but that's all I remember. It was in an anthology, so he's probably quite well known. I have a feeling he wrote before the 20th century. I hope that's enough. --hacky (talk) 17:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Crossing the Bar by Alfred Lord Tennyson. Marnanel (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Censorship of WikiLeaks
How is the attempted American prosecution of WikiLeaks any different than the Pentagon Papers case? --75.28.52.27 (talk) 20:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In the Pentagon Papers the main issue was pre-emptive blocking of the first publication of as yet unpublished material. In Wikileaks there may possibly be after-the-fact espionage charges (though no one knows whether that will happen yet, except to Manning). AnonMoos (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As yet, I'm not aware that the US has actually tried to prosecute anyone other than Bradley Manning, and it isn't at all clear that they have any legal grounds to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:10, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The main difference is historical perspective. Note that the publication of the Pentagon Papers was stopped by court injunction on behalf of the Nixon administration. Only the Supreme Court overturned this in New York Times Co. v. United States, which is now seen as a great victory for freedom of the press. If the Wikileaks case ever goes to the supreme court, I strongly hope for a court that wants to be mentioned along the New York Times Co. v. Sullivan or Brown v. Board of Education cases, not together with  Schenck v. United States or even Dred Scott v. Sandford. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Daniel Ellsberg was tried for violating the Espionage Act. The judge threw out the charges when it became known that the government had engaged in illegal and unethical tactics to try to get dirt on the defendant. It's quite possible that had people other than Richard Nixon's cronies been running the show at the time, Ellsberg might have been found guilty. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is exactly correct. Ellsberg certainly broke the law; if the prosecution hadn't been so boneheaded about it, he certainly would have been prosecuted. That is a separate legal question from the attempt at prior restraint against the New York Times. The New York Times case, in any event, set out very clear requirements for what an effective prior restraint would be, and why the specific instance of the Pentagon Papers did not satisfy them. It was not a carte blanch for the republication of classified material, even in the name of journalism. To the contrary, it thoroughly upheld the ability of the government to do such things, if the circumstances regarding the classified information were different. But in any case, prior restraint cases are very different than "espionage" cases, though obviously the line between the two is a debatable one! --Mr.98 (talk) 02:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The question and responses here show massive US-centrism so far. Obviously a fundamental difference is that the Pentagon Papers was a purely American affair, whereas Wikileaks is global. The website has mirrors scattered all over the world and the vast majority of its operatives are not US citizens and don't reside in the USA. US law generally does not apply outside its borders, just as for any other country. This makes a complete difference to any plans to prosecute anyone and anything over Wikileaks. HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is absolute nonsense. Extraterritorial jurisdiction is the name for this concept and it is used all over the world.  The "fundamental difference" is that wikileaks possesses classified U.S. documents.  Extradition treaties are agreements between sovereigns to permit the signatories to exercise jurisdiction beyond their borders for criminal prosecutions. Switzerland, for instance, permits the extradition of individuals to the United States whose acts would constitute a crime under Swiss law if committed in Switzerland.  The world permits sovereigns to exercise jurisdiction outside their borders by treaty; this is the way it has been for hundreds of years.  Indeed, an American proscecution of anyone connected with wikileaks could be possible, should extradition occur from a country willing to extradite.  This is why the legality under American law is relevant despite the "US-centrism" Gx872op (talk) 06:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we're actually in frantic agreement here. Yes, extradition can occur, and that's obviously a difference, and it's only necessary because, unlike the Pentagon Papers, Wikileaks'activities and people are largely outside the USA. HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)