Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

June 2

Japan how?

Hi. I'm interested in a Paragraph-long description of how Japan went from a medieval society full of people with swords to a ultra-modernized technology powerhouse. Also why was it only Japan and not other places in the world that transformed so quickly.

I'm interested in how we still get homework requests. Check Japan specifically the section pertaining to its history. Come back if you're confused by anything you find. - AMP'd 00:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not homework. How you can treat people so rudely is beyond me!--the OP

Swords went away with the introduction of dependable guns - just like the rest of the world. As for how they became a technological powerhouse, it all started on the deck of the U.S.S. Missouri. If you don't have to fund a military, you can invest a lot of money in domestic growth. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Try Meiji Restoration. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 00:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The Meji Restoration does, indeed, mark the beginning of the steady ascent of Japan into the modern world; but the whole process of transforming an ancient feudal state into a modern industrial power was, in fact, quite lengthy, beginning with the opening of the country by Commodore Perry in the 1850s. At that point Japan had a choice: adhere to ancient practices and customs and risk becoming the colonial subject of foreign agencies, or begin a process of social, political and technological transformation. The Meji Restoration, as such, merely entailed a fundamental shift in priorities, though tradition and modernity, swords and guns, still went hand-in-hand, which does much to explain the path that the country later took in the 1930s. The rapid new phase of technological development after the Second World War was simply based upon past experience of investment and economic growth. Why Japan and not, say, Korea? The simple answer is that someone had to be first, and Japan had the sufficient social and political cohesion to make the leap at an early stage. But others have followed, and in fact have developed at a far quicker rate. Modern China and India arguably provide no greater example of this process. Clio the Muse 02:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't there actually a period of time when Japan went from having a rather well-established gun-possessing populous, to the Shogun banning guns for all but a very few? Japan actually went away from guns until the arrival of Commodore Perry? Corvus cornix 21:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct corvus.Czmtzc 16:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Liszt's Student

I met someone who claimed to have been taught piano in Shanghai by one of Liszt's students. Liszt died sometime in the late 1880s, and the person making the claim would be about 70 years old himself this year. I suppose this is possible. Does anyone on the desk have any information about any such teacher)s) and the likelihood of one being in Shanghai in the late 1930s and early 1940s? Bielle 01:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It certainly seems possible. There was a fairly large German Jewish refugee community in Shanghai at that time, and it's possible that one of them would have been a student of Liszt, who according to our article anyway had many students. See Shanghai ghetto (though I don't think it's really accurate to call it a ghetto). A likely candidate seems to Wolfgang Fraenkel, who, according to this article (you're going to have to click the 'abstract' button under Cultural accommodation and exchange in the refugee experience: a German Jewish musician in Shanghai) taught Chinese students in Shanghai from 1939 and 1947. I have not been able to ascertain whether or not Fraenkel was a student of Liszt.--Pharos 02:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, if you write to Christian Utz he could probably tell you if Fraenkel (or some other refugee musician) had studied with Liszt.--Pharos 02:59, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no information on piano teachers in Shaghai as such, Bielle, though I can tell you that in the 1920s and 1930s the city was one of the few places in the world that had an open-access policy for refugees, including Jews fleeing from persecution in Europe. There is a little information on this in the page on the History of Shanghai. So it is possible, I suppose, that this could have been one of Liszt's Jewish pupils. Clio the Muse 02:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all. I will check out the links. Even if I don't ever find the specific answer, I will know a lot more than before I asked the question. Bielle 03:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I've had a keen interest in Liszt for too many years to reveal, and I'm still surprised that our article doesn't contain a long list of his students, at least the more notable ones. We mention 6 of them, but there were hundreds. (Note to self: Add to my To Do Liszt ... err, List). -- JackofOz 03:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Sometime in the last ten years I read an article about the death of a pianist who had been a student of a student of Liszt. Online I find [1] where someone wrote in 1997 a poem about her piano teacher, Mme. Katinka , who had been a student of Ernst von Dohnanyi, who had been a student of Liszt, "who was a student of Czerny, who was a student of Beethoven, who was a student of God." Edison 16:45, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Descartes

Is there an antedote about Rene Descartes, upon after spitting inside a house, and told to next time, spit on something worthless, spat into the host's face? If not, who was that philosopher?

The anecdote has been ascribed to Aristippus and to Diogenes of Sinope, according to Diogenes Laertius.

Here are the quotes from Diogenes Laertius, as translated by Charles Duke Yonge:

(Aristippus) On one occasion, when Simus, the steward of Dionysius, was showing him a magnificent house, paved with marble (but Simus was a Phrygian, and a great toper), he hawked up a quantity of saliva and spit in his face; and when Simus was indignant at this, he said, "I could not find a more suitable place to spit in." [2]

(Diogenes of Sinope) Once, when a man had conducted him into a magnificent house, and had told him that he must not spit, after hawking a little, he spit in his face, saying that he could not find a worse place. But some tell this story of Aristippus. [3]

Then again, there's also this anecdote regarding Aristippus, Dionysisus, and spittle:

Once when Dionysius spit at him, he put up with it; and when some one found fault with him, he said, "Men endure being wetted by the sea in order to catch a tench, and shall not I endure to be sprinkled with wine to catch a sturgeon?" [4]

---Sluzzelin talk 07:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What do they know of empire?

Hi I was wondering to what degree the overseas Empire impacted on the consciousness of the British public in the nineteenth century? Was it an important factor in the lives of ordinary people? Did they see it through Kipling's eyes, or was the picture quite different? Three questions for the price of one. I hope I've not overdone it! Cheers Martinben 07:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

For some upper middle-class families, the impact would have been profound, as there were many opportunities in the civil service, military, trade and land ownership/production in those holdings. For most people, though, I'd say the most significant impact would have been the increasing availability of products such as sugar, bananas, cotton, spices, tobacco, rice etc that changed what people ate and what they wore. The British Empire article also says that by 1870, Britain was producing 30% of the global industrial output, so the ease of availability of raw materials from the colonies had a concomitant effect on the economy and employment in the manufacturing sector. The Empire was no doubt romanticised in the minds of many, providing the background for adventure stories such as those found in the Boy's Own Paper and novels of the time (King Solomon's Mines and Kipling, for eg). Natgoo 11:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The simple answer is far less than is imagined; far less than those in the school of Edward Said would have us believe. Indeed, for the best part of the nineteenth century it hardly impacted at all. The patriotic concept of Empire was a relatively late creation, really only emerging when a sense of crisis set in the years leading up to the outbreak of the First World War. In high culture it hardly features at all, and no major novel of the day has an imperial theme. In architecture the 'Imperial style', if such an expression can even be used, effectively disappears after the time of George IV, as Britain adopted the same Greco-Roman fashion preferred throughout the western world, non-imperial societies included. Even in boys' fiction the subject of Empire is almost completely avoided before the advent of G. A. Henty. R. M. Ballantyne's 1858 novel Coral Island is 'exotic', rather than imperial, as indeed are the works of Rider Haggard. The stories and poems of Rudyard Kipling were a relatively late addition to the literary canon, and his enthusiasm for Empire is in large measure explained by the fact that he was born in India. The general indifference in Britain itself was a source of frustration to some, including the historian J. R. Seeley, who complained that the Empire seemed to have been acquired "in a fit of absent-mindedness."

Native British lack of enthusiasm for the project of Empire is, in large measure, explained by the educational system of the day, which placed no importance whatsoever on international affairs and contemporary politics. In 1902, when a Member of Parliament asked a class of school leavers who among them had heard of the Indian Mutiny, only one boy raised his hand. It is also important to realise that British schools, unlike those in the United States, placed almost no value on the importance of patriotism. Indeed, the British political elite tended to view any enthusiasm of this kind with a high degree of suspicion, because of its association, via the French Revolution, with republicanism and democracy. British people belonged to specific social classes, and classes had duties, not rights. The upper classes were taught to rule, at both home and abroad; the lower classes were taught to obey; and the middle-classes were taught how to create wealth. Empire was merely a distraction. In 1893, Lord Kimberly, himself former Colonial Secretary, when asked if children should not be given some lessons in imperial patriotism, said that they would be better off "given practical lessons in the geography of their own localities rather than being shown maps [of the Empire] they are not well versed in, and which do not convey much to their minds."

One also has to consider the nature of the British Empire itself to understand why it played so small part in the consciousness of the nation. The 'Imperial Red' maps-which did not start to appear until the 1880s-are actually quite deceptive, suggesting something centralised and unified, like the ancient Roman or the modern Russian Empires. The British Empire, in contrast, was possibly the most decentralised in history, in that a good part was administered by local elites, which meant that it could be maintained at the minimum of cost, and with the minimum of personnel. In other words, no national effort was required to sustain it. The small class of Imperial Civil Servants was proud of their exclusivity: it was their Empire, not 'the peoples'.

These attitudes began to change somewhat by the beginning of the twentieth century, at the time of the Second Boer War and after, when the Empire came under threat from rival powers and home-grown nationalism. It was only at this time that the imperial propaganda movement got underway. But apart from brief bursts of enthusiasm, the general response remained muted. In 1911 an executive of the Victoria League remarked of a lecture given at the Workers Educational Association that the "audience gave the impression of suspicion, of hostility to the subject and of considerable indiference to the conditions prevailing in the colonies."

Yes, the Empire was there, yes it had important economic and political consequences; but the deeper sense it was like an iceberg-virtually invisible until the very last moment. Clio the Muse 23:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Clio, my Clio: a little touch of genius in the night! Martinben 12:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Beastiality

Hello I was wondering what the current laws around the world are regarding animals that pursue sex or otherwise rape humans. Is the animal put the sleep? Compensation? Owner penalty? etc. Also, what about if someone enjoys it, but they don't force it? Like, a woman gets on all fours, and a dog comes from behind and has sex with her. Is that illegal in most jurisdictions?--0rrAvenger 07:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Zoosexuality and the law. Natgoo 10:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent question... not! An icky parellel case might be: what if a child goes around forcing adults to have sex with him/her? What penalties would the child face? Both children and animals are usually considered unable by law to give consent for such activitity, so I think the adult/human would be considered culpable, no matter which party purportedly iniatiated the contact. Can you provide a source--perhaps a news article--documenting a beast having its way with a human in the manner you describe?--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:27, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Doubt that this has ever come up. The normal reaction of animals to humans is to avoid or eat. The sexual cues would be totally different. The zoosexuality article is about humans forcing themselves on animals, not vice versa. Clarityfiend 18:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Tell that to every damned leg-humping dog. Edison 22:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, male dogs attempt to mount people only when those people have been in contact with female dogs, particularly female dogs in heat. Marco polo 13:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've heard anecdotal reports of dolphins being sexually attracted to and even forcing themselves on humans. The only decent reference I could find was an article entitled "A review of swimming with wild cetaceans with a specific focus on the Southern Hemisphere" in Marine Mammals: Fisheries, Tourism and Management Issues. Here's a PDF file [5]. --Joelmills 22:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Inquiring minds want to know how many indecent references you found. —Tamfang 19:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Girmityas in Fiji

Dear reference desk I need to find out where will I be able to access information relating to the personal names of each passenger on the various ships which travelled from India to Fiji carrying indentured labourers...I have found the list of the ships and the number of passengers...I would like some help in finding the exact names of the passengers...does anyone know where I will be able to find this info... Thank you very much

John Locke

In whay way have John Locke's ideas been used and interpreted over time? Secret seven 14:42, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

His book Some Thoughts Concerning Education was widely considered throughout the 18th and 19th centuries as a definitive work on learning, along with Emile: Or, On Education, by Jean-Jacques Rousseau - many people tried creating schools based on his thoughts, generally with success, and many children's stories were written with his teachings in mind (including Sesame Street!). Indeed, throughout the 18th century, children even of very rich families were deliberately given cold or damp clothing, becuase "bodies will endure anything that from the beginning they are accustomed to". However, his famous concept of tabula rasa, once very popular has been partially discredited by the discovery of genetics: a person's IQ is determined largely by their genes, and so not everyone is born as an equal "blank tablet". Laïka 15:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the best critique I have ever read of John Locke was that written by Mary Astell, the very first English feminist and a Tory, who attacked his Whiggish political philosophy because it deposed monarchical tyranny while leaving husbandly tyranny in place-"If all men are born free, how is it that all women are born slaves?" Clio the Muse 00:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

English Civil War

How and why have historians perspectives on the English Civil War changed since the Second World War? Secret seven 15:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Each age has a tendency to recast the past in its own image, and this is never more true than in regard to the English Civil War. For many years before the Second World War the accepted fashion was to read all the issues by this great defining moment in terms of the development of the English constitution. The Great Rebellion, as it was usually called, was just another marker on the road to the Glorious Revolution of 1688, where all of the outstanding issues were addressed and resolved. But the period after the War saw the triumph of a new mode of interpretation, which might in the loosest sense be referred to as 'historical materialism.' This was the approach that united those from quite different political backgrounds, from R. H. Tawney, on the one hand, to Christopher Hill, on the other. It was a time of change and upheaval, a time when the old historical models no longer seemed to serve. In the place of people, their motives and their actions, came great abstract forces, like shifts in economic power, the rise of the gentry, the decline of the aristocracy and so on. The 'English Revolution' was reshaped to fit with the same patterns of interpretation used for the the French in 1789 and the Russian in 1917. When C. V. Wedgewood tried to challenge this new consensus, with a return to older forms of narrative history, she was widely criticised by the academic establishment, one reviewer saying that "her refusal to analyse makes it impossible to see below the surface of mere events."

This tendency to undevalue narrative was also a consequence of the growing influence of the French Annales School, most represented by historians like Marc Bloch and Ferdinand Braudel. This whole style of analysis drowned detail in great and sweeping floods of historical interpretation. It was fashionable, it was compelling-and it was banal. Bit by bit historians appeared who challenged all of the questionable generalisations that emerged from the Materialist and the Annales schools. Douglas Brunton and Donald Pennington's work on the Long Parliament, for example, showed that the political divisions that emerged during the Civil wars had little to do with either social class or economic interests. The notion that the English Revolution somehow represented a victory for historically 'progressive forces' was further undermined by the detailed work of David Underwood in Pride's Purge, and Blair Worden in The Rump Parliament. Laurence Stone, to take one further example, showed in The Crisis of the Aristocracy that the titled nobility were not the 'feudal class' the Materialist model supposed; and more recently John Adamson's The Noble Revolt:the Overthrow of Charles I highlights the importance of rebel aristocrats in bringing down absolute government.

In large measure the cumbersome ideological baggage of the past has now been discarded in favour of a return to 'real history', history as it actually happened, understood in terms of the motives and actions of those who took part, rather than a history that demands that people walk on and off stage in accordance the role they have been alloted in the bigger drama. It might even be said to be the posthumous rehabilitation of S. R. Gardiner, the greatest historian who has ever worked in this field, in my estimation at least. Clio the Muse 01:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Stone is one of my personal heroes, and Trevor-Roper is not a person I like, and Hill has shown himself capable of terrible hastiness (The Experience of Defeat), but Marxist history did a great deal for the history of the Civil War. The analysis of the economic status of the kingdom informed and protected against many of the naive stories that had been told, and primary sources are rarely aware of the things that caused the causes they recall. Historiography, like literary theory, seems to be in a state of constant correction (I won't say "dialectic," because that presumes that there is a better that will go to perfect some day). Each generation corrects the methods and conclusions of the generation before, but always with excess, always with the vehemence of antithesis rather than reason. (Well, that sounds grand, doesn't it? Never mind.) Geogre 12:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I share your enthusiasim for Stone, Geogre, but less so for the Marxist school, which has done more to obscure the true causes of the Civil War by viewing the whole period through an ideological glass darkly. To take but one example, the Levellers and Diggers were not, contrary to Hill's assertion, harbingers of a democratic future, but millenarian vestiges of a Medieval past. In the crisis of 1640, moreover, politics and religion were in command, not economics. Even Carlyle's 'great man' thesis has better applications that the Marxist model of impersonal forces; for matters could not have developed as they did if Charles had not been such a disaster as a king. Clio the Muse 00:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a baby to be rescued when jettisoning the bathwater of Marxist dogma. This is the attention to economic motivations. Too many historians who wrote before, say, 1930 all but ignored the real economic interests that motivated individuals and the economic motivations that classes of people shared. While economic motivations do not explain everything, nor should they be ignored. This is the valuable corrective that Marxist historians provided. It is good to reject their rigidity and bias, but it would be unfortunate to deny the explanatory power of economic motivations or economic class. While these may have less explanatory power for the English Civil War than Marxist historians claimed, it is impossible to really understand many historical processes without reference to economic matters. Marco polo 14:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The distinguished Venetian gentleman has said it well. I have very bad feelings about Hill. Of all of them, he was the most rash, but without E. P. Thompson, we have such an impoverished field as to be a dustbowl. I cannot escape feeling that Winstanley is only Winstanley (and not Bartholomew Steer) because of the historical moment, and the historical moment is a constellation of needs and threats that have everything to do with economic formation. The force of genius can only be felt when time and place are right, and the fitness of the time and place have to do with the world's prosperity. The reason I cannot escape this is the virtue of the work of the Marxist historians. It's absolutely true that the "sacks of potatoes cause the Revolution" school is worthless, even as a corrective, but it's similarly true that great men are madmen (a la A Digression on Madness) if the rest of the world isn't ready for them.

Where such economic factors are clearer, and where they have triumphed in historical analysis, is the American Civil War. Was it about slavery? No...er...yes. Because of slavery, the south's economy was dependent upon an immobile, unskilled workforce, and that had it addicted to a single crop. Therefore, the challenge to the high profits of that crop led to a feeling that sovereignty is at stake. So, even though no one, north or south, set out to fight to abolish slavery (even the abolitionists), the war was "about" slavery as the underlying economic condition that ruled all others.

Anyway, I'm no fan of Hill, but they can have my Making of the English Working Class when they pry it from my... Well, maybe before that, but not much more. Geogre 18:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, I will happily concede the value of the Making of the English Working Class, which I also consider to be a superb piece of scholarly analysis, though this is moving well away from the area under immediate consideration. I have to say, though, that I've always read Thompson in a very English radical tradition, in the fashion of, say, George Orwell, rather than as a horny-handed Marxist son of toil! And yes, Marco, I also agree that economic factors are important, but very rarely in any pre-eminent sense. Clio the Muse 22:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What sculpture am I describing?

In the early part of this decade (perhaps 2000, 2001), I recall visiting the MoMA and coming across an enormous sculpture I would describe as follows: An enormous metallic boulder was suspended from the ceiling. Embedded into its surface were many toy cars, toy trains and maybe toy people; I dont remember; it looked like a weird asteroid, or perhaps it represented a giant magnet, attracting all sorts of junk. The whole thing was very violent, menacing and apocalyptic; it was over-the-top. It must have weighed several tons. I know I'm not describing it very well, but if anyone knows the name of this work or the name of the sculptor, I would appreciate your sharing it with me.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 17:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I remember seeing that at the MoMa myself. A quick google shows it is by Chris Burden and called "Medusa's Head": Medusa's Head. The photo on that webpage does not really capture the scale and "menacing" quality. Pfly 05:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Bingo!! That is a freaky sculpture. Thanks for helping me find it.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 23:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Type of Government

What is that type of government called when a group of geniuses lead a society? I think they have to have a certain IQ to be put into office. It differs from democracy because anyone can be elected into office if they are popular with the people (who aren't exactly so smart all the time).

I also think albert einstein supported this idea, or some other really smart person.

68.100.89.95 18:16, 2 June 2007 (UTC)Daniel

Geniocracy? I had to find this episode of the Simpsons to get there. Who said television is bad? --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There are also Plato's ideas. A.Z. 18:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Putting people into office based on an IQ test would be interesting. Is there any office in the world into which people are put based only on their IQ? A.Z. 18:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I would go with meritocracy. But the whole idea is flawed. IQ tests are dubious, and even if they weren't, intelligence doesn't equate to skill in governing. Clarityfiend 19:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

But what equates to skill in governing? No-one knows. Maybe it's best to let the intelligent people tell us what to do. Maybe a lot of intelligent people working together could lead a society.

Or, maybe, a high IQ could at least be used as a minimum requirement to become the leader of a society. A.Z. 19:13, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Einstein turned down the presidency of Israel. Most of the really intellectually intelligent people in history were smart enough to avoid public office, Napoleon excepted. There is already a neverending test for "governing intelligence". It's called politics. But you may be onto something...is the world ready for Wikipediocracy? What sayeth the WP:CABAL? Clarityfiend 19:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

According to U.S. Presidents IQ hoax#Estimated IQ of George Bush, his IQ is believed to be between 120 and 130. Clarityfiend 19:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't Einstein accept the presidency? His article says that he wrote: "I am deeply moved by the offer from our State of Israel, and at once saddened and ashamed that I cannot accept it." A.Z. 19:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Einstein himself said that science was his primary concern and he considered himself "not suited for the task [of being President]." The scholar Simon Gurevich suggests it was because Einstein was clever enough to know that "solving the problems which a politician has to face is much harder than even the most complex, seemingly insoluble, problems in physics." Rockpocket 21:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'm not going to take into account the personal opinion of Simon Gurevich, since it doesn't seem to matter much. It seems that Einstein was an intelligent man that thought he could help the world more by concerning with science. Well, that is not an argument against making intelligence a criterion for becoming president. Obviously the idea of a government of only intelligent people doesn't mean that all intelligent people would have to be presidents. A.Z. 21:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Einstein was also quite old at the time and suffering from a variety of physical ailments. He died only a few years later and was not in good health at all at the time. That's my bet for why he was "ashamed." --24.147.86.187 23:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Technocracy is a standard definition to rule by experts. The problem is, of course, that experts are not always good rulers, for the reasons cited above and also because experts are quite often exceptionally dismissive of disagreeing opinions and exceptionally prone to overestimate their own knowledge. Einstein would not have supported a technocracy — while he, like many intellectuals of his time, could get especially frustrated with democracy and populism, he supported democratic socialism, which is not the same thing as technocracy (and not the same thing as Communism or authoritarian socialism, but the FBI couldn't tell the difference, of course). Note also that his WWI experiences in Germany no doubt thoroughly convinced him that experts can be idiots too. --24.147.86.187 23:58, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Most public intellectuals in the US supported democratic socialism in the 1930's and 1940's, it seems, and many still do, in the US. I am currently reading American Prometheus, the biography of J. Robert Oppenheimer, and many, many, many people were victims of the FBI's "inability" to tell the difference between democratic socialism and Communism. So many were, in fact, that I do not believe that the FBI was unable at all. It seems likely to me that they knew darned well that these people were not "Communists" but simply counted on the American people being unable to tell the difference. It was hard right vs. left, not "Communist" vs. "Capitalist" (unless "capitalist" means "those with most money rule, and all moral constraints must be removed"). (The biography also does much to show the influence of Niels Bohr and his Kierkegaardian world view on this particular group of American scientists.) Geogre 02:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, not to defend the FBI or anything, but the FBI believed that if you opened the door to anything that resembled socialism the Ruskies would barge on through, even if that wasn't the explicit goal of those who started to open it (and I do think that at the time most of those FBI guys really didn't know much of anything about political or social theory — socialism was socialism, as far as they were concerned, and frankly I'd wager that most people in the US today make the same association). Anything left-of-center was considered a "fellow traveler" under Hoover's watch. For the definitive look at the FBI's particular suspicions of Einstein — which were also rooted in the fact that Einstein was one of the most outspoken scientists on racial inequality, anti-lynching, etc. — see Fred Jerome's The Einstein File. The FBI assumed — rightly or wrongly, I'm never quite sure — that many of these fellows like Einstein were, at best, dupes, at worst, purposefully dangerous. --24.147.86.187 12:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Indochina

I've just finished reading Graham Greene's novel The Quiet American, which details the American search for a 'Third Force' in the Indochina conflict of the early 1950s. I was wondering what the real reaction was to the French colonial war? Martinben 20:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Some Americans, such as the OSS representatives who had worked with the Vietnamese forces against the Japanese during the war, were not happy to see independence denied to the Indochinese in favor of a return to French colonialism. The American public took little note of the conflict, being more concerned with getting back to postwar peacetime life after the Korean conflict. The federal government seems to have backed the French, sending in the CIA to do bombing and supply runs. They (Truman, Eisenhower) were worried about the area falling to communism. Edison 22:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

American attitudes to the war in Indochina, Martinben, underwent quite dramatic changes over a fairly short space of time. During the Secind World War the administration of President Roosevelt had taken a strong anti-colonial line, and was united with Ho Chi Minh in not wishing to see the French return to the region. Ho was even convinced that the United States would support him in the Vietnamese struggle for independence. However, with the onset of the Cold War American priorities changed from anti-Colonialism to anti-Communism. Whether or not Ho was a Communist or nationalist was irrelevant, because as a 1949 State Department memo says "...all Stalinists in colonial areas are nationalists. With their nationalist aims achieved, their objective necessarily becomes subordination of state to Commie [sic] purposes." As a result, the United States tried to shore up French resistence in Indochina with money and aid. By the time of the defeat at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu in 1954 it was financing as much as 80% of the French war effort.

Washington, however, also preserved something of an alternative political strategy. Whereas the French saw the attempt to regain control in their old colony as part of a wider effort to recapture international prestige, the Americans were anxious for them to reach some kind of accommodation with local non-Communist nationalists, Graham Greene's fictitious third force, if you like. In response to American pressure the French came up with the Bao Dai solution, offering to give power to the former Emperor of Vietnam under French patronage. For France it was a political fig-leaf on a colonial war; for America it offered a path forward to a non-Communist Vietnam. It was an illusion, whatever way one cares to look at it. The contradiction was exposed by Walter Lippmann in April 1950, when he explained that the Bao Dai experiment could only work if the French promised real independence. But how could they be expected to maintain their effort in a colony that they had promised to give away? America was in an impossible situation: it could not allow an immedite French withdrawal for fear of a spread of Communism, and it could not sponsor a war against national independence. As Lippmann put it "we have as yet no adequate policy in south-east Asia." The absence of an adequate policy in the region was to continue long after the French were gone. Clio the Muse 02:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The U.S devotion to democracy was shown to be lacking in 1956, when there was supposed to be general elections to select a unified government of Vietnam. Eisenhower's sources told him that Ho Chi Minh would win as surely as Washington won the Presidency in the first U.S. elections, so Eisenhower found reasons to refuse to hold elections, managing thereby to delay Ho's ascent to power for about 18 years at the cost of millions of lives. Edison 19:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

June 3

Vice president and the Chain of Command

Does the U.S. Vice President have a formal place on the chain of the command of the U.S. forces? The President is of course the Commander-In-Chief, but does the Vice President have any "Deputy C-in-C" status? And similarly, does he have the authority to give orders to military personel?

SamUK 10:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC) Edited by SamUK 10:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. The Veep's role is substantially less than the President — it is not a "President Lite" sort of affair — and I'm pretty sure they don't have any official military status. --24.147.86.187 12:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There is, of course, nothing to suggest that a veep should not be a former member of the Armed Forces as much as presidents have served. Eisenhower served in the US Army before entering politics. Though it probably hasn't happened yet, I suppose there is no reason why he couldn't constitutionally be appointed Defence Secretary, any more than any other politician could. At any rate, he would obviously inherit the position of CinC when he exercises the prerogative of the President as Acting President. In the article Dick Cheney, it says he exercised the office of President once (1st paragraph), as did Bush Senior for Reagan. Obviously, though: few Acting Presidents would be willing to use that power. Presidents have the habit of picking veeps who aren't a threat to them. Cheney signed no laws as acting Pres. He doesn't even want to stand for election 2008 anyway.martianlostinspace 12:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe there would be a problem with the Vice President being appointed Defence Secretary, in the form of a prohibition either in the Constitution or federal law against an individual holding two federal offices. I have seen no discussion of a U.S. Vice President issuing commands to troops in any wars prior to the present Global War on Terror. Many VPs were kept in the dark. Truman did not know wew were working on an atomic bomb during WW2 until he became President on the death of F.D. Roosevelt. V.P. Dick Cheney is reported to have issued orders to Air Force pilots on 9/11, perhaps under a White House version of Ignore All Rules , just as Lincoln ignored parts of the Constitution in favor of what he judged the "inherent power" of the Presidency to Preserve The Union. Edison 19:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did say constitutionally, which automatically discounts federal statute, and only includes clauses in the constitution. Can you cite clause/law to this effect, though? I would also point out that Cheney is by far the most powerful Vice that ever existed in the USA. Yes, the Vice has traditionally been ignored - but this is increasingly no longer the case. He would, of course, need to have Senate approval. In practice, though: I don't know why a president would want to appoint him as defence secretary... most VP's seem to have plenty to do as things are.martianlostinspace 19:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody can draw the salary for two offices, according to the Constitution, but I couldn't find (admittedly in a rather cursory search) to any clause preventing someone from holding two offices, which is surprising, because I thought that Edison was correct, above. Corvus cornix 22:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I recall reading about the prohibition in discussions that the Speaker of the House could not continue in that office if he were sworn in a President, even if temporarily as during an illness of the President while there was no Vice President. Edison 17:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I once had an analogous thought, Corve, but then I noticed parallel clauses that the President, Senators, Representatives and judges "shall receive a compensation", which means one can't hold two such offices by refusing pay for one of them; perhaps the laws defining Cabinet offices have similar language. —Tamfang 04:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Separation of powers. The House is legislative, the president is executive. But the vice-president is an exception, as both exec and leg. At any rate, both Defence Secretary and (vice) President are executive, so that priciple wouldn't apply.martianlostinspace 17:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

One thing that needs to be remembered is that originally the VP was not an alley of the presedent but from the opposition Party. Originally he was the runner-up in the election. This is why the constitution gives him no official powers other then President Pro-tem of the Senete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.131.177.6 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 6 June 2007

Yes and no. Since the Electors each voted for two candidates, the two winners need not be rivals; Jefferson and Burr were the first "running mates" before the rules were changed (but fell out when they tied, as both wanted the top job). The Federalist Papers argue that an advantage of the large republic over small ones is that a "majority faction" (an inevitable product of a two-party system) is less likely to form, so the Framers can hardly have had an institutional opposition party in mind. And by the way the VP is the President of the Senate; the President Pro Tem is a senior Senator who substitutes for him when he's not in the chamber. —Tamfang 03:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

George III

I came across a reference recently to an American plot to kidnap George III. I was looking for details on your encyclopedia, but so far have found nothing. Perhaps I am not looking in the right place? Can anyone help direct me, or fill out the blanks? Thank you MindyE 11:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There was a failed plot to kidnap George's son William IV while in America. From the article:

George Washington approved a plot to kidnap the prince, writing "The spirit of enterprise so conspicuous in your plan for surprising in their quarters and bringing off the Prince William Henry and Admiral Digby merits applause, and you have my authority to make the attempt in any manner, and at such a time, as your judgment may direct. I am fully persuaded, that it is unnecessary to caution you against offering insult or indignity to the person of the Prince...." The plot did not come to fruition; the British heard of it and doubled the prince's guard.

---Sluzzelin talk 11:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This story, in fact, relates to an episode in the American War of Independence that is now almost completely forgotten: namely, the activity of the American community in London-approximately 1000 strong-at the time of the outbreak of the revolution in the thirteen colonies. The government was so worried by possible subversion that in the Proclamation of Rebellion, issued in the autumn of 1775, the public was warned to be alert to signs of treason. From the Town Criers, and from news sheets, the people were told that there were "Divers wicked and desperate persons" in the capital and, in the name of the king, all those who became aware of "traitorous Conspiracies and Attempts against Us Our Crown and Dignity" were asked to inform the authorities. In October of that same year, Lord Rochford, the minister responsible for home affairs, was approached by one Francis Richardson, a loyal American, and a serving officer, who advised him of the most startling conspiracy of all: the King was to be kidnapped, taken to the Tower, and then bundled off to his ancient patrimony in Hanover. The man behind this plot was Stephen Sayre.

Sayre had revealed the details of his astonishing scheme to Richardson at the Pennsylvania Coffehouse on 19 October. He planned, with the support of the London mob, to intercept George's coach while he was on his way to the state opening of Parliament. It would then be diverted to the Tower, where the King would be incarcerated, while the mob broke open the arsenal. Sayre claimed that he had the support of John Wilkes, Lord Mayor of London. A proclamation would be issued under the royal seal "to annul the Authority of all Officers, Civil and Military of which the aforesaid Stephen Sayre's Party should disapprove." Sayre appealed to Richardson for his help, both as a fellow American and a true Briton, for "if there was not a change of government both countries would be ruined."

Improbable as the whole thing sounds, Rochford took the matter seriously; for Sayre, a London sheriff, was known to be a close political associate of the radical John Wilkes, and a man of dangerous views. He was duly arrested, but there was not enough evidence against him to justify holding him in the Tower. The press got hold of the story, and were inclined, despite the atmosphere of the times, to cover the whole thing in ridicule. Sayre, it was announced, had been arrested "upon an Information so romantic, so foolish, so absurd, that if they thought the Accused could have done what he was charged with, he ought to have been committed to Bedlam [a mental hospital], not the Tower." Sayre was finally released on 28 October, after the King had opened Parliament, on a bail of £1000, a huge sum for the time. By now the rest of the administration, fearful of political embarrasement, began to distance themselves from the over-hasty Rochford, who finally resigned from office in November. All charges against Sayre were dropped, and the bail cancelled.

It's an interesting little tale, not without relevance to our present day situation. Sayre was, with justification, known to be a political subversive. For at least a year before his arrest his correspondence was being intercepted and monitored. Amongst other things, Sayre and his associates had discussed the need for a new government, even a new king, if liberty was to be saved. One letter named Charles William Frederick, the Duke of Brunswick, as a possible successor to George. Miltary intelligence was also being sent to the rebels in Massachusetts, and arms shipments arranged through Holland. Richardson's story was therefore received against this background, leaving Rochford with an immediate dilemma: should he wait until sufficient evidence was gathered, or act on immediate intelligence? So, please remember poor Rochford's predicament next time you read about the sudden arrest of suspected terrorists! Clio the Muse 23:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Clio the Muse. Why is there not an article on this interesting story? MindyE 12:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fall of the Roman Empire

I know there are a great many theories on the Fall of the Roman Empire, but what is the latest thinking on the fall of the western empire specifically? General joffe 11:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A good idea would be to go to the article, and look at some of the references. Using a ISBN search find which book is the newest, and read the book to get a general concept on the authors idea. Personally, I don't believe you are going to get one uniform idea though, because everyone has there own point of view. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 16:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember who said it, but: "It didn't fall; it was tripped." Clarityfiend 19:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

"Single" causes belong to pseudohistory, and people fight about them in soccer stadiums: historical events always have have multiple causes, even quite simple events like "why did I get fired?" --Wetman 19:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It was the lead(II) acetate that did it. —Keenan Pepper 22:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh? I'm intrigued. What am I missing? --Dweller 11:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you read the article? The Romans boiled down grape must in lead pots to make a delicious syrup, which was sweetened not only by natural grape sugar but also by the lead acetate from the pots slowly dissolving. They used it as an all-purpose sweetener, so it led to widespread chronic lead poisoning among the upper classes, and the resulting neurological symptoms (lethargy, irritability, memory loss, even insanity) may have contributed to the decline of civilization. —Keenan Pepper 16:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Missed it. Interesting. I suppose that would only hold true if both a) the Romans began that practice (or it became more widespread) around the time the decline began and b) the "barbarians" didn't follow that practice. Lol. Thanks. --Dweller 21:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If one cares to follow some prevailing theories, then it might, perhaps, be said to have 'disappeared' in a fit of absent mindedness! It is true, great historical events can rarely, if ever, be reduced to a single cause, or even to a narrow range of causes. However, I think it is worth stressing that the Empire never fully recovered from the disastrous defeat at Adrianople in 378AD. From that point forward the barbarian tribes were a fixed part of the Roman polity. The Goths became, in a sense, a 'state within a state'. In the end, it was not the 'outsiders', like Attila the Hun, who were the greater danger, but the 'insiders' like Alaric I and his successors. Probably the greatest service Alaric did to the eastern Roman Empire was to move his people to the west, where they eventually established their own state. The matter was made worse when other barbarian tribes, notably the Vandals, the Alans and the Sueves, crossed the porous western frontier in 405-6. They came not as raiders but as settlers, and their settlement reduced still further the taxable basis from which the Empire drew its strength. It was a vicious circle: lower revenues, the weaker the army; the weaker the army, all the more barbarians. By 420 the western Emperor no longer had the resources to replace the soldiers lost since 405. Increasingly, second-grade garrison troops had to be draw into the main army. The state was literally 'withering away.' For the true causes of the Fall of Rome it might be best to look to the non-Roman world, the world that developed in those dark forests just beyond the frontiers. Have a look at The Fall of Rome by Bryan Ward-Perkins, The Fall of the Roman Empire by Peter Heather, and remember always Sic transit gloria mundi. Clio the Muse 00:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The very bad shape of the Roman economy, incompetent financial policies, and the massive inflation is also worth mentioning, I think. The denarius was almost constantly devaluated - which is a one of the reasons the barbarians became such a problem. Falling rates of return to empire might have been an underlying problem here (this is mainly Tainter's argument [[6]]. Basically, he argues that Roman expansion was supported by one-time 'boosts' to the treasury (other people's loot, in essence), and that when this money dried up, the Roman state was stuck with the long-term cost of occupying and garrisoning the conquered region. This worked well as long as there were other, equally rich regions to conquer, but as the Roman empire moved into poorer regions (Britain etc), its empire became more and more expensive while revenues stayed the same. Random Nonsense 19:36, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Spies

Which country had the first known spies? He who must be obeyed 12:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

If they're known are they spies?.... Anyway, there are spies in use by the Judean tribes in the Old Testament. Saul the King among others employed them. Geogre 12:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This Northeastern University page lists some links that might be helpful. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Not the oldest, but see Frumentarii. Marskell 13:10, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The use of intelligence gathering and deception is as old as statecraft itself. No doubt there were spies of sorts amongst primitive tribesmen. I think you'll need a more specific question to be focused and answerable, i.e. which nation-state employed the first intelligence service, etc., or define "spy" in a particularly modern way, etc. --24.147.86.187 13:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Geogre. I believe the first real spies were the old judean tribe spies. To see an article on one of them see Caleb. Also, a pretty good idea would be to read Espionage. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 16:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that there were spies before there were countries. Just as the Judeans sent men ahead to take a look at the Promised Land before the main body arrived (what are the defenses, the indigeonous population, and the natural resources like) when the successive waves of human migration left Africa, they may well have sent scouts ahead. "Spy" was a synonym for "scout" in the US in the early 19th century, by the way, as in a book about the Fort Dearborn Massacre in which a lookout at the fort calls out that he sees a soldier and a spy approaching from the South. Edison 19:08, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I suspect there were animal spies before there were humans. A.Z. 19:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, given the nature of the activity it is difficult, if not impossible, to pinpoint when spies came into existence. Indeed, the profession is probably as old as civilization itself, if not older. But for some historical examples you might begin with the Assyrians, who in about 720BC formed an elite military unit known as the Quradu. A personal bodyguard for the king, they were also sent on secret missions, which may very well have included spying on potential enemies. The Spartans had a unit known as the Krypteia-the Hidden Ones-skilled in camoflage and night attack, who may also have been spies. But the earliest reference we have to spying as such is to be found in the pages of Herodotus, where he discusses the preparations for the Persian invasion of Greece in 480BC. The Greeks sent spies to Sardis in Turkey where the enemy army was mustering. They were caught, but Xerxes, the Persian Emperor, simply showed them around his army, in the expectation that the news they carried back would do much of his work for him. Clio the Muse 01:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Flags on the U.S. President's limo

Is this photo reversed for some reason or does the U.S. flag move from the right front fender to the left when the President is visiting other countries? If the later, why? Dismas|^(talk) 17:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the answer to the question should also be included here. Note also that there is another national flag on the car, so, maybe, the question should be "which flag will be on each side?" My guess is that it makes no difference, since they are equal and none of the two sides is somehow better than the other. A.Z. 18:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

According to tradition, if not government policy specifically, the U.S. flag is always supposed to be on the right from the flag's point of view. Therefore if behind a speaker at a podium or on a lecture stage or some such thing, the flag should be on the audience's left. The article for the United States President's limousine states that the U.S. flag flies on the right fender since that would be the right side of the car from the flag's POV. Therefore, there is a side that is "better". But this image seems to break those precedents. Dismas|^(talk) 19:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Did you follow this link? It's not like it is a tradition in the U.S. and other countries just don't mind where their flags go. It's an international protocol that the flag goes on the right. It's just that, in this case, there are two flags. If it were only the Brazilian flag, it would be on the right side, and, if it were only the American flag, it would also be on the right side. What we don't know is which are the rules that decide which flag will go on each side when there are two different flags. A.Z. 19:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did and I don't see how it answers the question. In fact it actually muddles things for me since I have always understood that the flag would be on the left of the speaker as seen from the audience (i.e. the speaker's right) but the link you provided says it should be on the right as seen from the audience. And then if we go by the Multiple flags section of that same article directly below the Other places section, it confuses it even more since that says that the hosting country should be on the left (of the procession as I read it). In this case, the limo was in Brazil so as the hosting country, their flag should be on the left fender. Dismas|^(talk) 19:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia is wrong, I don't know. I asked for help on the talk page of WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology. A.Z. 20:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, could it be possible he was riding in the car with Lula?--Pharos 19:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I think they only met inside the Granja. That was the meeting where president Lula said (with my highlight) "I think we are moving steadily towards the G spot, which means reaching an agreement. Should Brazil and the United States reach a balance point, then we will be able to make our proposal to the remaining countries." [7] A.Z. 19:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

That's wrong. According to the website from where the photo came, that photograph was taken in 2005, and the meeting that I was talking about happened in 2007. A.Z. 19:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

In other pictures I could find with two discernible flags, the US flag is always on the right: [8],[9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. This includes foreign state visits. The one image of the 2005 visit to Brazil is the sole exception. Might it be the case that the image shown is mirrored?  --Lambiam^Talk 22:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Presidential flag

The flag on the left in those pictures seems to be the Presidential flag. According to the article on United States President's limousine, "The vehicle has a flag of the United States mounted on the right front fender, and a Presidential flag on the left front fender." Did you find pictures where there is the U.S. flag and also another national flag? A.Z. 22:48, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The flag on the right of the cars in this picture is clearly the Brazilian flag. It seems obvious that it is being given the place of honour as the host country. Why both flags are on the car, in contrast to the other pics where the US and POTUS flags were flown, is an interesting question. By the way, there isn't an international protocol for flags - there are some elements common to the protocols in many countries, but the rules/guidelines are different in different countries. JPD (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin

I'm trying to determine how Putin will fit into Russian history. Is he a new democrat or an old dictator? Fred said right 19:05, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The best thing to do would be to read Vladimir Putin. --Tλε Rαnδоm Eδιτоr 19:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have, but it does not really answer the question I have placed here. Fred said right 20:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I just added important referenced information to the article on Vladimir Putin, because of this question. [14] A.Z. 19:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Much of it will depend on who comes next after Putin. If it becomes a democracy people will say that he was a transitional figure. If it becomes more authoritarian people will say he was a slide backwards. But you can't figure out how history will judge a figure in the present time, because how the future judges the present will depend on what has happened between now and then. --24.147.86.187 20:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

He might very well be excused for being a dictator on the base of economic success. Take a look at the developement of russian life expectancy from Gorbachev to Putin.

In my mind this question automatically gives rise to another: what is the Russian experience of democracy? Put this in a slightly different way, is democracy always desirable as an end in itself? Putin, despite his perceived faults, and despite the authoritarian tendencies of his regime, has brought to his country a sense of order and a self-esteem that all but vanished in the political and economic chaos of the 1990s. We have to begin by admitting that simple truth. We also have to understand the patterns of Russian history. The very nature of the country, its size and its strategic vulnerability, have always made 'the problem of order' the central political consideration. I would go so far as to say that for most ordinary Russians order has a far greater value than abstract notions of personal freedom.

The rule of Boris Yeltsin is less noted for 'a new birth of freedom' than for economic and social chaos. Millons of ordinary people were thrown into the deepest poverty, forms of poverty that recall the 'bagman' and 'cigarette-lighter' economy that emerged from the chaos of the Revolution of 1917. The attendant political instability, moreover, also recalls another phase in Russian history-the Time of Troubles. In the place of Tsar Boris Gudunov came Tsar Boris Yeltsin, who effectively created a desolation and called it democracy. Russia, one of the world's most powerful countries, was close to complete political disintegration, just as it had been at the time of the False Dimitris, the three pretenders who claimed the throne after the death of Gudunov. So, what does democracy mean for most Russians, those few who did not become fabulously wealthy by dubious means? It means poverty, it means weakness and it means national humiliation. Indeed, there are many people in Russia who believe that the west had a deliberate interest in this whole process, and who can say that they are entirely wrong?. Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin, may be heroes in London and Washington; they are not heroes in Moscow. Vladimir Putin is a hero, and for very understandable reasons. In historical terms, to continue my analogy, he occupies the same position as Michael of Russia, the first of the Romanov Tsars, whose reign marks the end of the Time of Troubles. Under Putin the economy has recovered and order has been restored. Russia has gone from being an international debtor to a creditor. The country is recovering its old power and prestige. When Putin said in 2005 that the disintegration of the Soviet Union was the "greatest geo-political disaster of the twentieth century" it unsettled some in the west but few in Russia. (Sunday Times, May 27, 2007) Putin now enjoys popularity ratings running at 70%, and it seems reasonably certain that a great many would support him if the constitution were amended to allow him to run for President for a third term.

To return to your question, Fred, do I think that Putin is a new democrat or an old dictator? The best answer I can give is that he is a democrat, insofar as democracy is an expression of the popular will, but a very Russian kind of democrat, one who understands his nation and its history. Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma only if we choose to make it so. And I hope my good friend Dimitri and the other people I know in Moscow are reading this. You see, you did help me to understand! Clio the Muse 02:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting take on these events, Clio. I wonder who will become, in due course, the reincarnation of Modest Mussorgsky. -- JackofOz 02:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You can be my Modest, Jack, and I will be your Katerina! Clio the Muse 04:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you knew the quality of my singing voice, Clio, I'm sure you would be desparately declaiming "Скорбит душа. Какой-то страх невольный зловещим предчувствием сковал мне сердце".  :) JackofOz 13:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What terror would that be, Jack? OK, OK; I had some help! Clio the Muse 13:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Clio, that is really interesting, a great assessment of Putin and his place in Russian history. Did you visit Lenin in Moscow? Is he real, do you think? Fred said right 07:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I really can't say, Fred. He certainly looks 'iconic', in an ancient Russian tradition. What really amazed and surprised me, though, was the huge number of floral tributes on the grave of Stalin (he is beneath the Kremlin wall, to the left of Lenin's mausoleum.) Clio the Muse 13:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is a bit inflammatory, as we can't really say what will be said about Putin, Blair or Bush several decades later. However, Putin responded to a similar question by The Wall Street Journal in his yesterday's interview. It's a very informative text for those who read Russian.[15] --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

An English translation is available here.[16] --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

cuban education

wha percen of cubans are educated? what are most of them educted in? and what are there schools like or how are there schools different then ours?

Take a look at Education in Cuba. In summary, it is very good considering cuban gdp.

i read the artical but i still do see the things im looking for.

Well, the 100% literacy rate tells you that all Cubans are educated to at least some extent. -Elmer Clark 03:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Or at least that Fidel says they are. —Tamfang 04:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't dis the Cubans just because you don't like their former leader. WP 11:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

How is it dissing the people to say I don't trust their government's claims about its accomplishments? —Tamfang 17:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Luya Province

I would like to know about the founder of this province 63.3.3.2 21:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You asked the same question one week ago: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 May 29#Luya Province. The province was created by law of February 5, 1861, so the "founder" was the Congress of the Republic of Peru.  --Lambiam^Talk 22:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

June 4

Canada/US split border towns

I was reading some time ago about how border towns split between Canada and the United States create hassle for residents who must often clear customs on their way to and from a shopping trip. Wouldn't it make things a lot easier if the two countries just traded some land so that each town was entirely in one country and had only one road exit (which is where the customs post would be moved) to the other? If I lived in such a town, I'd demand this of both my MP and my Congressman. NeonMerlin 02:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Neon might demand such a solution, but the people who learned that their property would now be in the other country probably wouldn't. In general awkward border layouts are difficult to resolve for this reason. Enclaves pose worse problems than towns with a simple border through them, and yet many of them persist today -- check out the Bangladesh/India entry in that article! --Anonymous, June 4, 2007, 04:22 (UTC).

Wikipedia covers everything: see Divided cities which lists towns split between countries all over the world, including Canada-USA. I read years ago that Rock Island, Quebec had a law enforcement problem with a single house that sat on the border, and an occupant who just would move jurisdictions by moving from one room to another. Because the border is an international one, extradition was the complication that prevented the two forces from working together. Bielle 05:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I read a (probably apocryphal) story about a drinking establishment that sat on the US/Canada border where the actual border was marked with a line down the middle, and if you were 18, 19, or 20 years old and wanted to drink alcohol, you had to stay on the Canada side. :) --TotoBaggins 13:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That's almost the premise of Bordertown, except the line ran through the sherriff's office, or something. Adam Bishop 15:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If you read the Time magazine article linked off of, I think, the Derby Line, Vermont article, it has a couple interesting anecdotes, one of them involving a meeting at the public library where one person came in through the window and stayed on the Canadian side in order to not be apprehended by the U.S. police forces. Dismas|^(talk) 16:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

My favorite such anecdote is of an English-speaking town in Quebec, where the owner of a business on the border road mentioned he was thinking of putting up a billboard in New York so that it wouldn't have to be half in French. —Tamfang 04:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You'd need to move the border quite far to get rid of the problem -- if there's a city on one side of a border, a corresponding city on the other side will tend to grow, giving you back the divided city. --Carnildo 06:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It is really not much different than border towns in U.S. states. Consider Kansas City. It is just as much in Missouri as it is in Kansas. There are problems - mainly around taxes and the lottery. But, law enforcement isn't much of an issue. If you are speeding in Kansas and try to run the border into Missouri to evade capture, you'll find that the Missouri side has granted the Kansas police to continue pursuit into Missouri until a Missouri patrol car can take over. There are some funny stories also. When I was young, there was a case where a guy purchased whiskey from McCormick's distillery in Missouri (just north of Kansas City) and took it home to Kansas City in Kansas. The police wanted to search his car and property for another crime, but couldn't get a warrant. When he crossed state lines with alcohol, he was bootlegging and they were able to stop him and search him all they wanted (and bust him for the larger crime, which was child porn if I remember correctly). --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Our article on the Northwest Angle says: "Secession from the United States and annexation by Canada has been proposed by some area residents on occasion, but little action has resulted given the proposal's non-urgent nature, lack of popular support, and sovereignty rights of the United States." Adjusting an international border, even slightly, would be time-consuming, controversial and legally complex. -- Mwalcoff 23:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought secession from the U.S. was unconstitutional. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Frederick Douglas

Is there any more detail of Frederick Douglas speaking tour in Ireland in the 1840s? 80.177.38.137 06:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's an account in his own words from The Frederick Douglass Papers at the Library of Congress: "Thought and Recollections of a Tour in Ireland" (Series: Speech, Article, and Book File---A: Frederick Douglass, Dated) (total of 18 pages) ---Sluzzelin talk 06:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was a temporary file. Go to The Frederick Douglass Papers' query site and type "Ireland" in the keyword box, then hit the "SEARCH" button. The fourth entry, titled "Thought and Recollections of a Tour in Ireland", is the one I was referring to. ---Sluzzelin talk 08:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Frederick Douglas was not the first black abolitionist to speak in Ireland; his tour in 1845 had been preceded by that of Charles Lenox Remond, who came four years previously. While Remond was there, Daniel O'Connell, the leading spokesman for Irish nationalism, organised the 'Great Irish Address', a petition urging Irish Americans to oppose slavery, which attracted some 60,000 signatures. So, Ireland was fertile ground for Douglas' tour, which took in some fifty locations, but the specific reason for coming when he did was in anticipation of the first Irish edition of Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglas, an American Slave. Also, Douglas had great respect for O'Connell, considered by many to be the leading European abolitionist. When he died in 1847, Douglas wrote of him "...the cause of the American slave, not less than the cause of his country, had met with a great loss."

Douglas' lecture tour began in Dublin in August 1845. The topic, curiously, was not slavery at all, but the evils of alcohol -"The immediate, and it may be the main cause of the extreme poverty and beggery in Ireland, is intemperance." But Douglas was also fully aware of what was happening in Ireland at this time-the beginning of the great Potato Famine-and of the various political injustices that had been perpetrated on the island-"They have been long oppressed; and the same heart that prompts me to plead the cause of the American bondsman, makes it impossible not to sympathise with the oppressed of all lands." He confined these thoughts, though, to his letters to William Lloyd Garrison, using his public platform to focus for the most part on the issue of slavery.

Speaking in Belfast in December Douglas singled out the Free Church of Scotland, led by Thomas Chalmers, for particular criticism. Chalmers had received large donations from the American slave-owning states for his work among the urban poor in Scotland, which Douglas argued should all be sent back. Although well-received in Belfast it ensured he met with a hostile reception from Free Church members when he came to Scotland.

Douglas continued to take an interest in Irish affairs up to his death in 1895, speaking on the theme of Irish Home Rule on the same platform as Charles Stewart Parnell. Clio the Muse 23:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn

Anne Boleyn was beheaded with a sword rather than an axe. Why was this preferable and why did the executioner have to be French? Judithspencer 07:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The usual explanation is that execution with a sword is more likely to sever the head with a single blow, and therefore be more "merciful" and painless than repeated chops with an axe (Mary Queen of Scots took three blows with an axe). The usual method of execution in Britain was with an axe, so a swordsman was imported from Calais, where beheading was carried out with a sword (bbviously the skill of the swordsman plays a part in how "merciful" the execution is. The executioner didn't have to be French, but they wanted a good executioner, and no one in Britain had the requisite skills. - Nunh-huh 07:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Mary executioner was especially sloppy, and spectators took note of "bad" executioners (see, for example, Jack Ketch). An executioner's axe was an immensely heavy object and should have severed the spinal column rather quickly, if it were aimed properly and delivered with force, but the human neck is meant to resist such blows. However, only a gentleman got a sword, while any peasant might have an axe, so there was a dignity in the sword. This is in addition to there being perhaps a low confidence in the native executioners (who would soon get a great deal of practice in the Marian and Elizabethan courts). Utgard Loki 15:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

As a condemned traitor, Anne should have been burned at the stake. The equivalent punishment for male offenders was hanging, drawing and quartering. However, in the case of those of noble birth, it was usual for sentence to be commuted, by royal prerogative, to beheading, a more 'merciful' fate. But, as both Nunh-huh and Utgard Loki have indicated, beheading with an axe could indeed be a gruesome and bloody affair: if you really want to know how bloody you would do well to examine the case of James, Duke of Monmouth in 1685. Decapitation by the sword was the practice in France; so this was presumably also the source of those most skilled in the technique. Also, the French method dispensed with the indignity of the victim having to prostrate themselves with their head on the block. Anne, so far as I am aware, was the only person in England to be beheaded in this fashion, the usual method being restored for the later execution of Katherine Howard. One small point of correction, Utgard Loki: no 'peasant' ever received the 'mercy' of the axe. If traitors they suffered the full penalty of the law. If convicted of lesser felonies they were simply hanged. Clio the Muse 23:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

US bombs Switzerland

Why, and under what circumstances, did the Americans bomb Switzerland during the Second World War? Captainhardy 11:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

According to a footnote in our article on World War II casualties, the Americans accidentally bombed Switzerland during the war causing civilian casualties. References given are two articles from Aerospace Power Journal, Summer 2000:

• http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj00/sum00/helmreich.html
• http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj00/sum00/helmreich1.htm

 --Lambiam^Talk 13:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Accidents will always happen in war, and given Switzerland's proximity to several important Axis targets, I suppose that it is no great surprise that it fell victim to a significant number of misdirected bombing raids. But the problem became so bad that the United States and Switzerland were virtually in a state of undeclared war in 1944 and 1945. The victims were not just Swiss civilians, but American aircrew, shot down by the Swiss fighters. Perhaps the most notorious incident came in March 1945, when a B-24 Liberator, commanded by Lieutenant William Sincock and Lieutenant Theodore Balides, dropped its bomb load on Zurich, in the mistaken belief that it was Freiburg in Germany. As John Helmreich points out, Sincock and Balides, in choosing a target of opportunity, "...missed the marshalling yard they were aiming for, missed the city they were aiming for, and even missed the country they were aiming for." The Swiss reaction was to treat these violations of their neutrality not as 'accidents', but as specific acts of war. The United States was warned that single aircraft would be forced down, while bomber formations would be intercepted without warning. In a space of three days in July 1944 no fewer than 23 aircraft were forced to land by Swiss fighter formations. While American politicians and diplomats tried to minimise the political damage caused by these incidents, others took a more hostile view. Some senior commanders argued that, as Switzerland was 'full of German sympathisers', it deserved to be bombed. General Harris Hall even suggested that it was the Germans themselves who were flying captured planes over Switzerland in an attempt to gain a propaganda victory! Clio the Muse 00:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I moved this curious passage to Switzerland during the World Wars. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Kindertransport

I would like some more detail on the Kindertransport, specifically the experience of the children who came to Britain. Thanks. Captainhardy 11:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at World Jewish Relief. Their "Jewish Refugees Committee" is the descendant of the body that organised the Kindertransports and helped look after the refugees. There's further information at their website ([17]) and there was also a book on the subject, called (I believe) "Men of Vision". I find several similarly named works on Amazon and elsewhere; I've not a clue which one (if any) this was. According to the charity's site, there were 10,000 Kinder who came to the UK and four have become Nobel laureates, which is extraordinary. --Dweller 12:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The book you are referring to, Dweller, is, I think, Men of Vision by Amy Zahl Gottleib, published by Weidenfeld and Nicholson in 1998. This deals with the attempts by the Anglo-Jewish community from 1933 onwards to save as many as possible from Nazi persecution, rather than the Kindertransport as such. For that specifically I would recommend Into the Arms of Strangers. Stories of the Kindertransport: the British Scheme that Saved 10,000 children from the Nazi Regime by M. J. Harris and D. Oppenheimer (eds.), and I Came Alone: the Stories of the Kindertransports by B. Leverton and S. Lowhensohn (eds.) The transports began in in December 1938 and continued until the outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939, by which time nearly 10,000 children had arrived in Britain. One of the key organisers of the scheme, Nicholas Winton, was later to be recognised as a 'British Schindler.' Clio the Muse 01:04, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Another book that, in part, discusses the kindertransports from the view of a child is Joe Schlesinger's Time Zones: a Journalist in the World.. He was evacuated from Bratislava on one of the transports along with his brother, only finding out after the war that his parents had perished in the Holocaust. --Charlene 07:32, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Question about the RMS Titanic

What I don't understand about the Titanic; this might take a while.

1.)If the ship could carry 3,547 passengers, how come it left with 2,220 when it was allegedly the safest ship afloat at the times. Surely it would have been a sell out?

2.)How was electricity supplied to the ship, was this done through the boilers too, because as far as I'm aware - although i could be wrong - they only powered the propellors.

3.)Surely the White Star Line kept records of the amount of passengers on the list? If this is the case, how come historians find it so perplexing to fathom how many people survived. When on the Carpathia, the surviving crew must have made a list, so as to informed the deceased person's family.

4.)And most annoyingly of all, why did the thing have to go and sink. Why did the Captain ignore the iceberg warnings? Was it so they could get into New York City earlier?

Thanks for answering my questions guys, --Brent Ward 14:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the other three, but I can answer question 4. I just watched the Titanic movie with DiCaprio and Winslet, and I think the captain just felt so good about himself. With over 20 years of experience out at sea, he probably just thought that he could manage it. Does that make sense?--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 16:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The movie Titanic does not necessarily present a faithful historical account of the captain's motives, and cannot be relied upon to answer question 4. The screenplay may contain fictional modifications and fabrications introduced for dramatic effect. No film camera or other equipment was present on that fateful night to record his thoughts. As captain Edward Smith died that night, he was not available later for giving a report. The captain had not ignored earlier warnings, setting a more southern course, and may have been unaware of the strength of the danger because more recent warnings had not reached the bridge (see our article on the sinking of the RMS Titanic).  --Lambiam^Talk 21:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The movie Titanic is highly suspect in many ways. One historian said (in exaggeration, of course) that the only thing he got right was that the ship sunk! James Cameron took a standard and rather trite love story and glommed it onto a horrendous tragedy. He changed around characters, making Thomas Andrews, for instance, the main designer of the ship, and deleted others. He brought a late 20th century sensibility to the relationship between Jack and Rose (they might have had sex but she'd never have posed nude for him - the mechanics of her clothing would have made that impossible). He didn't even do enough research to realize that there had been a J. Dawson on the real Titanic - a middle-aged stoker, whose family was shocked and disgusted to find his gravesite desecrated over and over and over and over again by fangirls. It's rather annoying that the deaths of 1,500 people, including dozens of babies and children, is now mainly known because of a trite, hackneyed love story. --Charlene 06:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

On question 2: Per Encyclopedia Titanica the ship had four main 400 kilowatt 100 volt DC generators, with electric lights and electric heaters in the cabins and electric elevators. There were about 10,000 light bulbs on board, operated at about 100 volts. Emergency lighting was powered by separate emergency dynamos.

The power was Direct Current, and the dynamos were powered by steam from the boilers. The two emergency generators produced 30 kilowatts each, and were located 20 feet above the water line, with pipes to allow operating them from any of the boilers. The emergency lighting included 500 light bulbs throughout the ship as well bridge lighting, mast lighting, arc lights, the Marconi apparatus, and of course the boat winches. Switchboards allowed the emergency power to operate boat winches and elevators as well as emergency lighting. Sources are unclear as to whether the wiring included both an outgoing and a return path, or only one conductor with the hull as the return path.

There could have been a set of batteries to back up the emergency generators, but I have not found a references for that. The Marconi room had a low power backup apparatus with its own batteries which could continue if the mains power on board failed. The dynamo crew kept the lights on until the ship broke apart. Thomas Edison demonstrated in 1880 that lights could be operated underwater. A hot bulb suddenly immersed in cold water might have shattered from thermal shock, but if it did not it could have continued to glow as long as the voltage remained on. The dynamos probably kept operating until the steam pressure failed during the sinking. There were 50 individual main circuits, each with its own circuit breaker in the gallery at the top of the dynamo room, which being towards the stern would not have been submerged until late in the sinking. Light fixtures seen on the wreckage today have shattered glass, so the pressure may have smashed them during the descent to the bottom.

A great site with reprints of some vintage articles is [18] where you can find an article from "The Electrician" of 1911 about the electrical systems. (Edison 15:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Where does the figure 3547 come from? That doesn't sound right. I think it was filled to capacity, but I would believe this figure to be somewhat inflated.martianlostinspace 17:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Our article says 3,547

I recall reading that there was a coal workers' strike around that time and it wasn't certain how many ships would be able to sail, so people were reluctant to make travel plans; and in fact the Titanic would have sailed with even fewer passengers if it hadn't taken some people that were booked on another ship whose departure was canceled. Sorry, I can't remember the source to be able to cite it.

As to the inaccurate knowledge of the number of people on board, I believe this is for two reasons. One is the possibility of last-minute passengers (after all, the ship wasn't full) and another is possible confusion about people who may have been counted as either passengers or crew, such as the ship's band.--Anonymous, June 4, 2007, 22:33 (UTC).

sorry.martianlostinspace 22:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, records just weren't kept as well back then as they are now. This was a time when the borders were relatively open. I don't believe that ships shared their passenger or crew manifesto with the authorities. Third-class passengers had to disembark at Ellis Island, but first and second class passengers generally just got off the boat. Also, at least one crew member jumped ship in Queenstown, and some that were scheduled to make the crossing spent too much time at the pub in Southampton and missed the sailing. Some names were written down twice and others were written down incorrectly. (And since at that time everything was hand-written, some crew and steerage passenger names were not accurately transcribed.) There were also a few passengers travelling under assumed names, which at that time and given the lack of border controls was possible.

martianlostinspace is right in that the coal strike was the main reason why there were so few passengers. Not only were people reluctant to make plans, but many immigrants from further east weren't able to get to Southampton or Cherbourg because their boats were stranded back east. What's more, many of the immigrants who were in Southampton waiting to cross had tickets issued by Cunard or other companies, and wouldn't be able to transfer to a White Star liner such as Titanic.

Some experienced travellers preferred not to board a ship on its maiden voyage. This wasn't generally due to fears the ship would sink, at least not according to contemporary reports, though. A maiden voyage was somewhat like a shakedown cruise; little things often went wrong. I think it was an older version of the Oceanic that had problems producing enough hot water on its maiden voyage!

Also, April was not a popular time to travel. Leisure travel had its seasons, just as it does now.

If you're interested in going into this in further detail, I strongly suggest the book "Titanic: Triumph and Tragedy" by Eaton and Haas. --Charlene 07:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

And to add to my previous comments, some passengers missed the sailing due to illness, transportation problems (one couple missed the sailing because their car broke down on the way to Cherbourg), and the like. There were also some passengers who boarded in Southampton and debarked in either Cherbourg or Queenstown, among them Francis Browne. There was confusion at the time as to exactly who had debarked and who had missed the boat, since records weren't kept as well as they would be today. Also, some of the names of the personal servants on board the ship were not known for some time, since they were only listed on tickets as "and maid" or "and manservant". --Charlene 07:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

In those days, if I remember correctly, the minimum regulations for lifeboats were 12 lifeboats. Unfortunately, the builders of the Titanic utilized a loophole in the law: the law didn't mention what size boat the specific law was for. So to save money, coupled with a feeling of invincibility, there were very few lifeboats on the Titanic. bibliomaniac15 An age old question... 00:43, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

This is partly right and partly wrong; see RMS Titanic#Lifeboats for a better discussion. It is also irrelevant to the original poster's questions. --Anonymous, June 5, 2007, 04:57 (UTC).

What are the "Isles of Ken"? (Beatles, Dead Can Dance, other)

At the end of the Beatles song "One After 909", John Lennon plays the opening of folk song "Danny Boy" to the altered lyrics "Oh, Danny Boy, the Isles of Ken are calling..." -- So, what are the Isles of Ken, what did it mean, where did he got that from?

Searches done:

• Wikipedia at One After 909, Danny Boy, Ken, and via search engine, obviously.
• All of Google (web, books, scholar, newsarchive, groups, blogs, even the images...) was to no avail for me about "Isles of Ken", "Isle of Ken", "Ken Island", "Ken Islands", or even "Isles of Cain" -- The only occurences of "Isles of Ken" seem to be those 1970 Beatles lyrics, and later 1988 Dead Can Dance lyrics (either quoting the Beatles, or referring to the same arcane source).
• Searching for / "isles of ken" -"ken are" -"ken we" / weeds out most Beatles and Dead Can Dance lyrics pages, leaving me with only a few pages without useful content.
• No more results at Altavista/Yahoo or Live.com

Some negative results:

• Unexplained at the Beatles song lyrics
• Unexplained at the song's recording session
• Unexplained at the collection of Beatles quotes about their own songs
• Unexplained at the scholarly analysis of the song

Is there something obvious I'm missing, a wordplay, a phonetic joke, or is it slang, arcane, or nonsensical?

Thanks. 62.147.39.62 19:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The word "ken" means range of sight or understanding, akin to German kennen - to know, to be aware of. I'd venture guessing that's what Lennon had in mind. Dr_Dima.

Dictionary.com: "ken ... –noun 1. knowledge, understanding, or cognizance; mental perception: an idea beyond one's ken. 2. range of sight or vision."[19] The Isles of Ken may be beyond our ken. The name also occurs in the lyrics of the song Ul(l)ysses on the album The Serpent's Egg of Dead Can Dance: "For the Isles of Ken we are assailing /Just like Ul(l)ysses on the open sea / On an odyssey of self-discovery".  --Lambiam^Talk 20:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a loooonnnnng shot, but ken is also Fifer speak for ''''know'''' as in ah ken whit ye mean = I know what you mean and fifer's (generally) speak fast so the phrase i'll (I will) might sound like isles granted John was from liverpool and their accent sounds bugger all like a fifer's and it would make the line mean = I will know are calling, bit like ah sed it wiz a lonng shot, ken. Perry-mankster 12:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

PEER RELATED ARTICLES

I AM LOOKING FOR PEER RELATED ARTICLES ON DISCRIMINATION AGAINST WOMEN IN THE WORKPLACE

• I assume that you mean peer reviewed articles, and you will not find them on Wikipedia, as Wikipedia was designed to replace a peer reviewed project. If you go to http://scholar.google.com and use Google Scholar, you will have better luck, but, honestly, you should not be at such a rudimentary state at this point. Geogre 20:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Russia´s targets in Western Europe

"If a part of the strategic nuclear potential of the United States appears in Europe and, in the opinion of our military specialists, will threaten us, then we will have to take appropriate steps in response. What kind of steps? We will have to have new targets in Europe": Putin, today. Just out of interest, can anyone here conjecture what the principal new targets would probably be in this case? (or is it purely bravado with no substance?). Thanks for info. --AlexSuricata 20:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be referring to the bases in Poland and the Czech Republic that the US are looking to build. [20] Recury 20:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That, and probably Euro Disney, that bastion of anti-Russian sentiment. --24.147.86.187 22:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Tinker Vs. Des Moines

Hello, I have a question that I hope someone can help me with. I am writing a thesis paper (7-10 pages) on Tinker Vs. De Moines, Supreme Court Case in 1969. It was about students protesting with arm bands in school about the war. I know the background, circumstances and basically the case, I have reseached it out but i have a problem. My thesis is "The Tinker Vs. De Moines was the case which stated the way for a student to protest in school legally." For this paper we must use any primary sources...Here is were I get stuck. I can't find hardly any.. Although minus the court transcript... Can you help Thanks, Jeffrey

Have you read our article at Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District? Check the external links at the bottom. Corvus cornix 23:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the transcript is probably your best primary source for a paper like this, unless you have access to things like newspapers from the time (which is easy if you are at a university, but it sounds like you are not). My suggestion: make your thesis a little more tailored to the arguments in the case or the way the ruling was established, that way your paper can be about how it was argued (and thus your primary source can be the transcript without any difficulty). A good generic thesis structure of this sort might be: "The key issue in Tinker v. Des Moines was not X, as one might expect, but actually Y." Of course, the hard work comes in trying to figure out X and Y. Read the transcript of the decision carefully, try to outline as you go through exactly what the argument is and its structure, and the odds are a somewhat more interesting and specific thesis will jump out. --24.147.86.187 03:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Cuba

Flag of Cuba

do the colors on cubas flag stand for any thing? thanks --Sivad4991 23:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

According to our article on the Flag of Cuba, designed by the poet Miguel Teurbe Tolón, the three blue stripes represent the sea that surrounds the island of Cuba, the two white stripes symbolize the purity of the patriotic cause, the red triangle stands for the blood shed to free the nation, and the white star in the triangle stands for independence.  --Lambiam^Talk 23:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Flag of Puerto Rico

Such "symbolism" in heraldic colors is usually made up after the fact. More likely imho, it mainly means "not the same as Puerto Rico". —Tamfang 04:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

thank you much --Sivad4991 23:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

June 5

Billy Strayhorn lyrics to "On the Wrong Side of the Tracks"

I am trying to locate the lyrics of a song by Billy Strayhorn entitled "On the Wrong Side of the Tracks", but am having trouble locating them. Can you assist me? Often Strayhorn's songs were misattributed to Duke Ellington.

• I take it that's a different piece than the one described here? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 03:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Victorian Troopships

Did the British Army of the 19th century run its own troopships, or did the navy transport army troops overseas? If the answer depends on the year, the questions concerns 1880 or before. Thank you. 68.106.202.126 03:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Jason

Jason, all of the answers you are looking for should be in Troopships and their History by H. C. B. Rogers. This deals with the history of troopships from the reign of Charles II (1660-1685) onwards. Clio the Muse 05:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Near crash of airline flight because of autopilot joke

About 8-10 months ago, I read an article on wikipedia detailing an airline incident in the U.S.A. where a plane almost crashed. Does this article still exist or can someone point me to more information? The details, that I remember, were that the pilot turned on some form of autopilot and invited another person to sit behind the stick/yoke (whatever the correct term is). Then, for some reason, (I think the pilot had planned this), the plane went into a slight dive or climb and the person at the controls reacted by pulling back or pushing in the stick, but to no avail. They all had a big laugh and the joke was over. When the pilot turned it off ("it" might be some sort of yoke/stick lock too, I'm not sure), the plane went into a steep dive and everybody became weightless (except the co-pilot, who was still strapped in). The copilot recovered from the dive at only one thousand 1000 feet and everybody lived, but the pilot was promptly fired. I believe this incident occurred over Texas between 1940 and 1970, but I'm not sure. Any more details would be great. (I realize I've recounted the whole story, but I'd like some verification of whether it is true or not. Thank you. --Rajah 05:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't recall the details, but it sounds like something I saw on Air Crash Investigations, so maybe try looking through the list of episodes there? Confusing Manifestation 07:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm ... it looks like the one I remembered was Aeroflot Flight 593 - is this the one? Confusing Manifestation 07:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was just about to mention the Aeroflot flight. --Charlene 07:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That Aeroflot crash reminds me of the Ehime Maru incident. --TotoBaggins 11:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

American Revolution

Is Mel Gibson's movie The Patriot an accurate depiction of the War of Independence?

Our article on the film has a section detailing the inaccuracies. --Charlene 06:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably one of the most disturbing and historically inaccurate scenes in the movie is the scene where Tavlington burns citizens of a town within a church. In a July 2000 New York Times article called "Hubris, But No History" David Fischer, a U.S. historian and author, said the following concerning that scene. "Something remarkably like this event actually happened, but not in South Carolina during the American Revolution. It happened in the French village of Oradour-sur-Glane on June 10, 1944, during World War II, and it was done by Germany's 2nd S.S. Panzer Division. There were atrocities enough on both sides in the American Revolution, but Roland Emmerich, the film's director, has converted an 18th century British and American Loyalist Army into the S.S." There are other historical facts and tidbits that are wrong in the movie, but it is my opinion that it is this inappropriate vilification of the British that could do the most damage to people's understanding of the Revolutionary War. Sjmcfarland 09:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Citizen Kane

What is Citizen in Citizen Kane ? Is there such a real-life title for eminent citizens ? Tintin 08:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting question; I had never thought about the use of this word in the name of the film before. It's certainly not a title in the same way as "Mr" or "Mrs". What it does is spell out the idea that Kane was a man of the people, rather than an aristocrat. There was a BBC sitcom in the 70s called Citizen Smith, which might be a reference to Kane but is also a joke about the main character's revolutionary beliefs. To address someone as "citizen" is to make a kind of statement about your supposed socialist affiliation with them. It connotes leftish comradeship in the same way as addressing someone as "brother" or "sister" does. These days, such terms would only ever be used ironically. Maybe there's a hint of the same irony in the use of the word "citizen" in relation to Kane. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It's also an outside reference. The state would refer to a person as a "citizen" in early communist nations. See W. H. Auden's "The Unknown Citizen": it is a way of depersonalizing and suggesting an economic unit rather than a living person. At the same time, it's a way of punning/playing with "first citizen of the United States." Such is the president of the US. That formulation has gone out of fashion (gee, can't imagine why, with all this talk of commander guy), but Kane is first citizen in another way. Finally, it is a sincere reflection of what the film is trying to get at: the man without sentiment. It is also a way of saying that he is us, and we are him, that he is average like us. Utgard Loki 13:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Last battle between England and Scotland

I had a friendly argument recently with some friends on that last battle fought between the Scots and the English as distinct national groups. Most people say it is Culloden in 1746, but I do not think that is right. If not, which is it? I've taken bets on the right answer, so please do not disappoint me, people! (Clio, are you there?) SeanScotland 09:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave Clio to give the accurate answer, but culturally, you could say it was this battle. --Dweller 09:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Amusing... I'm not sure if that counts.

The phrase "distinct national group" is somewhat ambiguous. If the Scottish Jacobites who supported Charles Edward Stuart in 1746 can be seen as a national group, then yes, this battle would represent the last battle fought between the Scots and the English. The Scots in this conflict, as I'm sure you know, didn't represent the nation of Scotland which had become part of the Kingdom of Great Britain after the Acts of Union 1707 Sjmcfarland 10:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Kindertransport pt. II

If the Nazis were trying to exterminate the Jews, why did they allow the Kindertransports? Or did they just not want Jews in their country and they didn't care if they lived somewhere else? Dismas|^(talk) 09:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See the previous discussion(s) on Holocaust timelines. There's no compelling evidence (in fact, no real evidence at all) of planned extermination of Jewry until long after the Kindertransports were stopped. --Dweller 09:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

William Pitt's Reign of Terror

What was this? MindyE 12:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

See Reign of Terror and William Pitt the Younger. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Despair

Who is the roman god of dispair? I assume he is mostly known under a synonym of despair. Or it might be a goddess.

And sorry if they don't have one. Is there anyone like this in the roman religeon?

I, for one, can't think of any. I'm thinking back on all the despairing moments in tragedy, and I can think of several invocations of dark gods and goddesses, but none for despair itself (herself, I'd say, but that may reflect my experiences). They'd invoke Nox and Dis and Hecate, but those were generally not despair so much as wicked darkness, and Hera was supposed to guard mothers from post-partum depression. Utgard Loki 15:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I can tell you that the Anglo-Saxons had a nice word for despair: "wanhope." It was sort of "hopeless" and "death of all hopes" mixed -- a state of enervation and ... despair. Utgard Loki 15:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Titanic

Hi there! I really can't figure out if I'm in the right forum. Should I be going to the Entertainment forum? Anyway, did Rose DeWitt Bukater, or Rose Dawson, and Jack Dawson really exist? That's the impression that I got from the movie, since you could see Rose talking about her voyage on the ship. However, many other sources on the internet say that she didn't exist. How is this possible?

See this article for information on the woman who inspired the story. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

That really isn't what I meant. Did the couple actually exist?

When a real person inspires a fictional story, it means that the people in the fictional story did not exist, but were based on real characters. Please read the article. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I see. That's too bad. If the characters weren't real, then who was the older Rose Dawson in the movie?

An actress :] HS7 16:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I get it. So what you're saying is that the entire love story in Titanic is a fake? There never was a diamond or some crazy forced fiancee? Also, does this mean that Rose Dawson never died since she didn't actually exist? Does this also mean that Jack Dawson never drew Rose naked OR fell to the bottom of the sea because he didn't exist either?

Yep. The film was inspired by (but not based on) the memoirs of a Titanic survivor called Helen Churchill Candee, "a 50-year-old American divorcee who was also a writer, nurse and suffragette, returning home in 1912 after learning that one of her sons had been injured in a car crash" (from the ABC news article). Most of the film's plot doesn't appear in her memoirs. Down M. 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Luya Province

Thank you for answering my questions. My motivation was because my last name is LUYA. In my country every person with our last name was part of my family. My research when I was living in Spain resulted that missionaries went to Cuba and other south american countries and I was wondering if maybe some of this missionaries did such a wonderful job in Peru that a province and district it was named in their memory. Thanks again 63.3.3.129 16:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)