Humanities desk
< April 25	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 26[edit]

Lockheed D-21 Operational History[edit]

The article for the Lockheed D-21 supersonic drone, along with most other sources I have read, states that only four operational missions were flown by this aircraft over China as part of a program called Senior Bowl, and none of the four were successful. Two crashed, one was lost when its parachute failed, and the fourth was destroyed when the Navy ship tasked with recovering the film capsule accidentally ran over it.

However, I have recently come across a book which claims that two of the operational D-21 missions were successfully recovered. The book contains an excerpt of an interview with a Lt. Col Alfred Crane, who worked with classified spy satellites and drones during the Cold War, in which Crane described processing two D-21 film capsules that had been recovered after missions over China.

I have been able to independently affirm through other sources that the book's author, Lloyd Spanberger, was involved with developing film from spy planes and satellites at Westover Air Reserve Base during the Cold War, so his accounts are likely genuine. If this information is true, it would require a major re-write of the D-21's Wikipedia article, but without anything more to go on I do not want to make any changes yet. So what should I-- and Wikipedia as a whole-- do? 135.135.227.26 (talk) 02:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the book were regarded as a Reliable source, you could at least include text to the effect that "According to the book . . . [etc.]"

However, the ISBN (as indicated here) shows that it is published through XLIBRIS, a self-publishing platform, and therefore by the author with no editorial control. Even if other sources seem to confirm that Lloyd R. Spanberger was indeed involved in affairs as you state, and that the other (admittedly copious) details of the book's co-contributors check out, a self-published work is going to be hard to affirm as 'Reliable'.

Spanberger's accounts may be genuine, but an individual's value judgement is not good enough for Wikipedia. To what extent have you considered that intelligence operations notoriously surround themselves with false information to cover up secrets (such as real sources of information being still-undiscovered foreign agents), and that the book, or even Spanberger's or Crane's existence, may be a manufactured part of such an effort? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.144.58 (talk) 03:35, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what purpose fabricating such information would serve, though. The book was published in 2014, and all official US government records pertaining to the D-21's operational history were declassified in 1994. While I stress that this is only my personal assessment, I don't see what the author would have to gain from falsifying such information 20 years after it was already made public and anyone could look it up and a coverup would no longer be necessary.

I am aware of Wikipedia's policy regarding reliable sources, and that this book currently does not meet the standards of one. However, all of the other information contained in the book is factual, covering such things as the failed tests of the digital photography system on the SAMOS satellite and the development of an infrared camera for the SR-71. For this one piece of information to be the exception would be unusual to say the least. While I will refrain from adding it to the article for the time being, I feel like there is no reason not to take this information at face value. 135.135.227.26 (talk) 05:05, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, Spanberger – who I'm sure does exist! My caveat was a hypothetical regarding the inherent unreliability of information defense and espionage spheres – might be considered a subject expert; on the other, the self-published nature of the book throws up caution signals – why did a mainstream publisher not take it up?

On reflection, I suggest you do use and cite it, but ensure you hedge the material with "according to Spanberger", "Crane states" and the like, and make the self-published nature of the source explicit. At worst, some other editor will revert and you can discuss it further, per WP:BRD. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.144.58 (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I reached out to the Seattle Museum of Flight, which has a D-21 on display, and asked them for their opinion on the material. They considered it to be potentially reliable. 135.135.227.26 (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the plunge and made the edits to the article. 135.135.227.26 (talk) 02:28, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is Pierre Poilievre's stance on VIA HFR?[edit]

Did Poilievre state whether or not he would continue to support VIA HFR? Félix An (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Conservative Party of Canada's official policy platform (see here): "We support rail infrastructure across Canada, including innovative high-speed passenger rail where warranted. This would ease conflicts between passenger and freight trains, reduce highway congestion and GHG emissions, and promote national unity and inter-provincial trade." and "The Conservative Party supports the capacity expansion of existing rail-based transportation infrastructure across Canada in order to secure tidewater port access and increase international market access for Canadian manufacturing, processing, agricultural, and natural resource exports." These can be found in paragraphs 66 and 67 of the linked document. Xuxl (talk) 13:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, a non-specific statement like that does not necessarily mean they would support this particular project. --142.112.220.50 (talk) 03:47, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus[edit]

Our articles on Columbus say little is known about his early life and that his original voyaging journals have been lost. This seems odd to me, considering his oversized role in history. What are the current explanations for these two missing components of his life? Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one bothered to write it down at the time? Blueboar (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really add up. We have extensive historical records going back thousands of years. But suddenly, the biography and journals of one of the most influential explorers in European history goes missing. Viriditas (talk) 20:59, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But he was only widely understood to have been influential some time after the fact. At the time, he was just another adventurer, with a murky past, operating with a degree of secrecy to protect both his own and his patrons' benefit, in an era where everybody from personal to State level was trying to steal their rivals' trade secrets.

Historical records may be extensive, but they are very, very far from being comprehensive. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 188.220.144.58 (talk) 21:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. I think the secrecy component explains the missing journals and biographical backstory. Can you recommend any good sources that go deeper into this? Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I see it is discussed at origin theories of Christopher Columbus. Viriditas (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost nothing is known of Verrazzano's early life, who discovered New York Harbor April 27th, 1524 (April 17th as Gregorian calendar not invented yet). It's not even known if he really was eaten by tropical cannibals or not. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But suddenly, the biography and journals of one of the most influential explorers in European history goes missing. What do you mean by "suddenly"? I don't think this is a case of important historical documents "suddenly" "going missing". More likely they weren't considered important enough at the time to preserve. Young Columbus wasn't an important person at all, and the importance of older Columbus (and his voyages) wasn't understood until later. Iapetus (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giving legal advice[edit]

Legal advice says the following:

In the common law systems it is usually received from a solicitor, barrister or lawyer; in civil law systems it is given by advocates, lawyers or other professionals (such as tax experts, professional advisors, etc.).

Does this mean that in your typical common-law jurisdiction, advice from a tax expert (or other non-lawyer expert in a field touching on the law) is not considered legal advice, while comparable advice from a comparable expert in a civil-law jurisdiction is considered legal advice? Is it a matter of definition of "legal advice"? I would expect professional advice from such experts to be comparable from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, regardless of a jurisdiction's legal system. Nyttend (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In general, only qualified lawyers (who may locally be known by another term), admitted to practice in a given jurisdiction, can represent a client in a court case in that jurisdiction, whether the system is common law or civil law. Based on the cited references, giving legal advice (as defined in our article) while not a legal professional (a "nonlawyer") is considered "unauthorized practice of law" in many or perhaps all US jurisdictions. I don't know to what extent this is the case in other jurisdictions. Advice on how to file one's tax return is not by itself legal advice. --Lambiam 16:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think the terminology used is a bit clunky. Here in the UK there are "solicitors" and "barristers" which are roles you attain after a specified amount of study and experience: whereas "lawyer" is a generic term for anyone practicing law. So it's wrong to say "solicitors, barristers or lawyers" because solicitors and barristers are lawyers. And there is no mention of notaries public, nor of legal executives. Conversely, the USA is also a common law jurisdiction* - probably the world's biggest - and there they do not (so far as I know) have solicitors, but the favoured term is "attorneys", a word which doesn't appear in the quote at all. AndyJones (talk) 12:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Correcting my comment, the USA is - of course - a collection of jurisdictions most of which are classified as common law. AndyJones (talk) 12:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]