Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 August 26

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

August 26

North Vietmaneese tanks in the Vietnam War

A friend of mine was in US Army Intelligence in the Vietnam War. He tells me of an incident where they told their superiors that North Vietnam was amassing tanks, but their superiors didn't believe them until hundreds of tanks came across the border. What event could he be talking about? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Possibly the Battle of Lang Vei -- although the number of NVA tanks involved was certainly not in the hundreds. Looie496 (talk) 04:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That was February 1968 - I don't think he was there that early. I'll ask him. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The Easter Offensive in 1972 involved a large armoured force (and some surprises for US intelligence, who were divided on the possibility of an attack through the DMZ), though it was after the withdrawal of US ground forces. Shimgray | talk | 17:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

That sounds more like it and is probably the right time period. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

In Great-Britain, monument to the dead soldiers after Islandhwana ?

Hello. Is there in Great-Britain any monument which was erected after the battle of Isandhlawana (as the "Maiwand Lion" in Reading) to commemorate the dead soldiers ? Thanks referently beforehand for your answer Arapaima (talk) 07:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a memorial, including the Colour of the South Wales Borderers who fought in the battle, at Brecon Cathedral. More information (as our article on the cathedral is quite poor) here. Brecon also has the South Wales Borderers Museum. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The preserved Colour is the actual one lost at the battle but found 13 days later in a river.[1] Also apparently there is a memorial book rest at Holy Trinity Church Aldershot.[2] Alansplodge (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Not Isandhlwana specifically, but apparently there is an "Afghan and Zulu Wars" memorial in Woolwich. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all ! Arapaima (talk) 08:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

John Westlake on enemy subjects

I'm looking for a source for a doctrin, ascribed to John Westlake. I found a quote from Westlake in German translation. Translated back to English it says: Enemy is not only the state, but enemies are also the citizens of the state war-leading against England.

I found literature by Westlake on the subject how to treat "enemy subjects", but I don't got his point. What is Westlake's position (with source/quote)?

Thanks for your support. -- 188.103.123.189 (talk) 11:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Any idea? -- 188.103.121.236 (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

??? -- 188.103.105.60 (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

how to uncover spy

how do I uncover spy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.168.7 (talk) 12:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Join MI6? This isn't really a suitable question for a reference desk. The methods of counter-intelligence are very varied and what will work best will depend on the circumstances. --Tango (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Take his hat off? --Jayron32 12:51, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much anything, apparently. Even watching how they draw their number 7s can give it away. --Dweller (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Though false conclusions could be thereby leapt to. Though English, I adopted the continental-style crossed 7 (7) when I was about eight, having lived abroad (the Far East) and seen how this avoided any possible confusion with some styles of writing 1. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.50 (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Or check to see how they hold their fingers when ordering beers. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 22:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained income in somebody working in critical, top-secret areas is a sign that investigation is warranted. Then there are psychological tests that can identify an amoral personality. Having spent time in certain foreign nations is also suspicious, especially if not disclosed and explained. Lie detectors machines are often used, but I'm skeptical about their effectiveness. StuRat (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Why do you assume that a spy is necessarily amoral? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point. It rather depends on who they are spying on. Betraying your own people is itself considered immoral, but, if the people you work for are themselves evil, like say the Nazis, one could justify spying on moral grounds. StuRat (talk) 19:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between amoral and immoral. In any case the basis for making the judgement on evil is itself entirely subjective. That's essentially saying "people who spy on my behalf are ok".

ALR (talk) 19:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say entirely subjective. You can define an objective criteria to which almost everyone would agree, which would say that killing millions of unarmed civilians, when not necessary to save the lives of even more, is evil. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Evil remains subjective, given your reliance on opinions there is no objectivity. However, in the context of the question it's made the point that establishing that someone is amoral isn't a reliable indicator were one attempting to establish who may be engaged in espionage. Indeed one might suggest, as some have, that being amoral is an advantage if one is an agent handler.

ALR (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

When you get right down to it, everything is based on opinion. Even the weight of a cubic centimeter of lead is, since different people all read the results produced by the scale, and give their opinion as to what it says. But, like the case I gave, almost everyone will agree. StuRat (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Another useful example in context. The mass of lead is the mass of lead, the value of that mass is fixed within certain thresholds. Individuals assessing the value of that mass will make slightly different assessments, although take a big enough sample size one could identify a probable mass.

Where one is discussing "behaviours" the opportunity for objectivity is far more limited. If one were to take a sample within pre-WWII Germany the activities of the establishment clearly weren't perceived to be particularly "immoral". In identifying an agent in that environment one would have been looking for behaviour that differed from the accepted norm; objecting to internment of "undesirables", protecting or exfiltrating etc. In contemporary UK with a broadly liberal democracy those who might be considered a threat of espionage might be those espousing particularly authoritarian views. That's probably a bad example given the lunacy of some of our tabloid newspapers though.

Essentially the issue is deviation from the norm, for the population that one is considering. Again using a UK example, the recent furore over undercover police inflitrating certain anarchist groups. The officers in question had to conform to population norms in order to avoid drawing attention to themselves; participation in criminal violence, conspiracy to commit violene against property or the person, drug use, casual sex within the population etc.

ALR (talk) 16:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, "morality with a significant deviation from the norm for that society" is a good way to describe it. However, I disagree that in pre-WW2 Germany most people were in favor of the mass-murder of people they considered "undesirable". The evidence against this is that they started the Holocaust slowly, and in secret, worried that it would create significant opposition. In conquered nations to the East, however, where they weren't concerned about public opinion, they proceeded quickly, and without the same attempts to conceal the genocide.StuRat (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Get all the people to stand in a line. Then shout "Everyone who is not a spy, take one step back!". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 18:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Spotting spies is easy, you look for the guys in brown trench coats wearing wide rimmed hats, and if you're still not sure the broadsheet newspaper with eyeholes cut in it is usually the clincher--Jac16888 ^Talk 18:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure that's meant as a joke, but does bring up a good issue. Spies are the opposite of James Bond. Being flashy and drawing attention is the last thing you want in a spy. Most of them look thoroughly forgettable. StuRat (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There is at the moment a rather unfortunate advertising campaign around Washington, DC, for the International Spy Museum that features all sorts of people in Mission Impossible getup (skin tight leather, fancy electronics all over them, hanging upside down from ceilings, etc.). It's really rather unfortunate given that the goal of the museum is to ostensibly present factual information, and most spies are quite unobtrusive looking by design. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Right, but I see where they are coming from. If they showed actual spies, people would yawn and ignore the exhibit, and never learn a thing. StuRat (talk) 21:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's the guys dressed all in black and wearing sunglasses that you've got to really watch out for. Those guys can get violent if they think that they've been rumbled, so I hear. Heh, this may be an apocryphal tale, but it was something my dad once told me about. Apparently M16 wanted to recruit some special forces (SAS?) guys for some covert mission or other - and they ended up with 15 guys with moustaches turning up on the day, all dressed from head to toe in black and wearing shades - who were then promptly told to go home. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Historically speaking the most effective way to uncover spies has been by spying yourself — the best way to catch spies is to have your own spies (ergo Spy vs. Spy). So the Soviets were able to uncover gobs of American spies thanks to their own spies, like Aldrich Ames and Robert Hanssen. Americans uncovered spies like Klaus Fuchs, Julius Rosenberg, and Ted Hall by means of intercepted cables (VENONA) mixed with good old fashioned police work. Ames himself was caught after the CIA began investigating the assets of people in their own organization — a classic way to find misconduct or corruption in general — and finding the guy who seemed to be living well beyond what his paycheck paid him. (That wouldn't have worked for Fuchs or Hall, mind you, because they were ideological spies, and were not paid for their work.) Once they'd narrowed it down to a suspect, they kept close observation on him until they saw him committing illegal activities. Similar things happened in the case of Hanssen, except in that case, I believe, the FBI actually acquired some of the information on their mole from a for-hire mole in the KGB. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If one is considering HUMINT, given that there are other forms of intelligence gathering, then one either looks for the agents themselves, or the agent handlers. In practice counter-intelligence would look at both.

In the case of an agent one might consider motivation; financial, idealogical, blackmail and then look for behavioural characteristics that indicate risk. What makes people vulnerable and what indicators suggest that vulnerability is being exploited.

If considering the agent handlers then examining their behaviour might lead to agents.

ALR (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

And note that the honey trap doesn't always have to take the form of blackmail. The person being recruited as a spy may genuinely love the person who entices them to spy. One common line is "they would finally allow us to marry/live together if you only do this". StuRat (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Christopher Andrew's history of the UK's counter-intelligence agency, The Defence of the Realm: The Authorised History of MI5 begins with the problem of bootstrapping a counter-intelligence function, when you don't have much of an idea where to begin. It starts with the run up to the outbreak of World War I, with it becoming clear that the German Navy's intelligence service would be very interested in the movement of the Royal Navy's shipping, and might attempt to sabotage the shipping or ports (they desperately did want to do that, and succeeded in the US). It begin amid some general hysteria (drummed up by a rather bad sub John Buchan-type novelist, who wrote hysterical stories in the popular newspapers alleging Britain was teeming with shifty-eyed hun agents). This led to the police being beset with all kinds of rather fanciful reports about strange lights at nights on rivers, and funny looking blokes hanging around (bizarrely even Charles Rennie Mackintosh was suspected by his Suffolk neighbours, due to his funny accent, arty style of dressing, and the collection of German art books he had). MI-5 had its work cut out responding to all this nonsense; their salvation was that the German intelligence effort was even more inept. They recruited neutral parties who might travel through British ports (looking for rascally types, it seems) most of whom happily rolled them over to the Special Branch. They even wrote to a guy who lived in the port town of Leith, on the basis that he had immigrated from Germany (some 20 or so years previously, and was happily married to a Scotswoman); they politely enquired whether he might like to post them regular letters detailing the movements of Royal Navy ships of the line that he might see from his home. Naturally he too flipped them to the police at the first opportunity. The Germans' daftest mistake was that they used the same postal box in Rotterdam for all these spies. Vernon Kell, the service's chief, prevailed upon the Home Secretary to allow wholesale mail intercepts (overcoming the "gentlemen do not read other gentlemen's correspondence" argument), and they quickly found and turned pretty much every spy the German Naval Service had in Britain (and then proceeded to manufacture lots of fake new ones to keep the Germans busy and happy). MI-5 quickly gained world-leading expertise in mail intercepts and in exploiting the leads this gave them. Intelligence, and counter-intelligence, has naturally come a long way since (it matured remarkably even over the course of WW-I) but the secret seems to be the same - lots of low-level trawling until you get a lucky break, then pull on that thread to unravel as much of the opposition's network as possible. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to "The Riddle of the Sands", the description would seem to be somewhat inaccurate... AnonMoos (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

No, Andrews talks about William Le Queux. In addition to The Invasion of 1910 (which, as the article says and Andrews confirms, was rewritten by the Daily Mail to reroute the German invasion through towns where that paper sold well), his 1909 Spies of the Kaiser claimed England hosted "a vast army of German spies". It seems that many people, and particularly Le Queux himself, failed to differentiate between such pot-boiler novels and actual facts. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Gutenberg has a copy of Spies of the Kaiser here. The author's introduction, where he writes "What I have written in this present volume in the form of fiction is based upon serious facts within my own personal knowledge... The number of agents of the German Secret Police at this moment working in our midst on behalf of the Intelligence Department in Berlin are believed to be over five thousand", sounds remarkably like Wikipedia:The Truth. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 23:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, "The Riddle of the Sands" seems to have been much more influential in high circles at the time, and is certainly better-remembered today, but Le Queux could have had the greater sensationalistic best-seller. What it really sounds like is the Red Scare... AnonMoos (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

They were not the only ones in WWI who believed Britain had been over-run by German spies. Noel Pemberton Billing, an aviation pioneer and MP, made claims that now seem hilariously lurid, but which then got him popular acclaim sufficient to be re-elected:

Billing took the view that homosexuality was infiltrating and tainting English society, and that this was linked to German espionage in the context of World War I. He founded a journal, Imperialist, in which he wrote an article based on information provided by Harold Sherwood Spencer which claimed that the Germans were blackmailing "47,000 highly placed British perverts" to "propagate evils which all decent men thought had perished in Sodom and Lesbia." The names were said to be inscribed in the "Berlin Black Book" of the "Mbret of Albania". The contents of this book revealed that the Germans planned on "exterminating the manhood of Britain" by luring men into homosexual acts. "Even to loiter in the streets was not immune. Meretricious agents of the Kaiser were stationed at such places as Marble Arch and Hyde Park Corner. In this black book of sin details were given of the unnatural defloration of children...wives of men in supreme positions were entangled. In Lesbian ecstasy the most sacred secrets of the state were threatened".

Etc., etc. If male homosexual acts are illegal, then a significant minority of the population becomes vulnerable to blackmail. In a country at war, all gay men became potential spies, in the eyes of the paranoid. BrainyBabe (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Billing sounds like one of those "Colonel Blimp" quasi-reactionary types in the tradition of Colonel Sibthorp, who sometimes achieved some success in local politics in Britain despite having overall world-views which were eccentric in the extreme... Significant antagonism towards Germany was actually stirred up more than a decade before the outbreak of WWI, when Germany started building a dreadnought fleet to rival Britain's (see German Naval Laws, High Seas Fleet, Tirpitz Plan, Kaiserliche Marine etc.). For Germany, its navy and overseas colonies were more of a symbolic show-the-flag international prestige type of thing, rather than having any great practical importance, while Britain was a maritime power which was not self-sufficient in food production, and so was basically dependent on shipments of food from overseas to avoid starvation -- and this meant that Britain would do whatever it took to match and exceed Germany in the naval arms race, regardless of the cost, as a life-and-death matter. In the end, the German navy-building efforts played a very significant role in driving Britain into an alliance with France without giving Germany any greatly compensating military advantage when the fighting actually began... AnonMoos (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm putting a tag here (somewhat experimentally) to display BrainBabe's references.  Card Zero  (talk) 18:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Jesus Christ

Are Jesus Christ and his life chronicled in any contemporaneous Jewish scriptures and/or in any Roman documents written at the time of his life and death in Judea and Jerusalem? Thanks. 94.172.117.205 (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Our article Historicity of Jesus goes into a lot of detail on the various sources available about Jesus. I haven't read the article recently, but if memory serves there aren't really any contemporary sources. --Tango (talk) 12:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Something to remember... the fact that no contemporary sources exist today, does not necessarily mean that they never existed. It is certainly possible that there were records which mentioned Jesus which were destroyed during the Siege of Jerusalem in AD 70. It is also possible that the Romans had a record... but it was purged by officials once Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire.... This would be very likely if such records said something that contradicted the biblical account. Of course, such possibilites are pure speculation (and as such, could not go into any Wikipedia article)... but both are, I think, realistic scenarios. Blueboar (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Blueboar -- Christians didn't have much meaningful power within Roman officialdom until after 325, and I find it difficult to imagine that relevant administrative records would have survived the devastation of the First Jewish Revolt and the Second Jewish Revolt, as well as two succeeding centuries (at a time when most government records were concerned with details of taxation, and were of little interest once they were no longer of current relevance for extracting tax revenue). Christians didn't censor Pliny the Younger's letters on Christianity in Anatolia or Julian's Misopogon, so it's hard to imagine why they would have been greatly concerned with (probably non-existent) musty old minor administrative documents... AnonMoos (talk) 22:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It is important to realize that 30 AD records exist for a tiny, tiny, vanishingly small portion of people who lived in the Roman Empire. Absence of government records is not any sort of proof of nonexistence. See also Josephus on Jesus, the writings of a first century historian. Edison (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

94.172.117.205 -- The short answer is "no", but the existence of Jesus is still about as well established as that of any other individual from ancient times who was not a ruler or high government official, and who is not mentioned in strictly-contemporary inscriptions. Note that it's very clear from the New Testament itself that Jesus had no real impact outside Judea, Galilee and closely-neighbouring areas during his lifetime... AnonMoos (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I am the OP and I really appreciate all the above answers, none of which really surprise me. I am a lapsed and doubting Thomas kind of Catholic in the UK and was visited by some Irish Missionaries who tried to get me to return to the fold. In so doing they gave me a load of leaflets and pamphlets to read which I dutifully did. Although they were brimming with stories of saints and miracles and stories of Jesus' sermons and his miracles and his Crucifixion and ascent into Heaven etc., my own researches revealed what I already suspected which was that everything in the New Testament was written at least 100 years after His death by people who never met him and were relying on tales they had been told. And why would the writers of the gospels have been able to write them anyway. They were poor Fishermen who I guess would not have been able to read or write anyway? None of that means that Jesus did NOT exist of course, but I am genuinely concerned that so much reliance has historically been placed and acted upon throughout the subsequent centuries without any real researchable evidence. But thanks again. Doubting Thomas. 94.172.117.205 (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

First off, it's more probable that the synoptic gospels were written within 50 years after Jesus' death, and John within 70 years, while authentic letters by Paul were of course written within less than 40 years after Jesus' death. And the gospel-writers are not a subset of the 12 Apostles (obviously there's no apostle named "Luke" among the original 12). The synoptics were written because the number of Christians was growing, while the number of direct eyewitnesses was decreasing, so that the previous mainly informal methods of spreading knowledge among Christians (i.e. oral transmission, supplemented by letters from various early Christian leaders in the possession of various different local churches) were presumably no longer adequate to the task of maintaining consistent doctrine across a geographically-dispersed church. The gospel-writers were not historians, and did not set out to write history as such (among the four, only Luke is really historically-minded in the Greek sense), but very few serious scholars (other than John Allegro!) seriously doubt Jesus' historical existence. The New Testament doesn't really provide a historically-documented account of the life of Jesus in the modern sense, but it does provide a fairly fully-rounded depiction of Jesus, in a way that's only available for a relatively few personalities of ancient times... AnonMoos (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to be a Christian yet consider Jesus as a kind of symbol or metaphor, as something meaningful whether or not he actually existed as an individual? I imagine that for most Christians the answer would be no--he must have lived and died literally, more or less, as documented in the Bible, else the whole thing is meaningless. But, is such a viewpoint required for one to be a Christian? Can one not "put aside" the question of whether he did or did not live and die as the Bible says and find the religion meaningful and sacred nonetheless? I have a hard time understanding why it matters. Value, meaning, and spirituality can be found in all religions, no? Why does it matter whether the specific doctrines and tales are literally true? Sometimes, when I see people who were raised Christian and then came to doubt and reject it, I wonder whether they are overreacting--frustrated about the loss of it being literally true they throw the whole thing away, even the parts that don't require literal belief. The history of Buddhism in China and Japan is fairly well documented, but there are obvious gaps and places where individuals who may not have existed have been raised to legendary status, such as Bodhidharma. Even teachers who clearly existed have frequently been glossed over with myths and legends to the point where they were likely nothing like the way they are made out to be in the scriptures. Like Jesus, Gautama Buddha was probably was a real person, but the tales about him were not written down until long after he died (something like 400 years later!). It's highly unlikely he was anything like the person he is made out to be in the Buddhist scriptures. It's likely that Bodhidharma never existed as an individual. His story is far more legend than historic. In Taoism, the "founder" Laozi probably never existed as a specific person, but this does make the Tao Te Ching any less powerful? Why must the historical facts matter for one to be religious? The point is not whether the scriptures are historically accurate, unless you are a historian. The religious point is what they say about life and death, how to find meaning and peace, and so on. I just don't see why the historical questions about Jesus matter, religiously speaking. Clearly they do for many people though. Pfly (talk) 08:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

This is an important matter for most religions because they deal in Revealed Wisdom. If Jesus Christ was NOT truly the son of God, his teachings become meaningless (and some quite evil, if he KNEW he wasn't). When you compare this to the Tao Te Ching, this is less of a concern. Take another example - Socrates. We do have evidence of his life, existence, and death through independent sources. However, even if we did not, every OUNCE of wisdom is just as valid, because they were thought by SOMEONE. That someone could be another person, or even the writer making it up. This parallels science - the Theory of Relativity could have been authored by anyone, and it would hold as much weight as it does today - not simply 'because Einstein wrote it.' This is not the case in religious doctrine; IT IS TRUE (supposedly) because of WHO SAID IT. Ehryk (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

From a Quaker or Buddhist perspective, where truth is subjective, it wouldn't matter whether the Jesus actually lived, died, and rose from the dead. But that is not a mainstream Christian perspective: it is represented in the Gospels by Pilate, who asks "What is truth?". As Paul says in one of the Epistles citation needed, if Christ didn't really die and rise from the dead, then what basis do we have to believe that we ourselves will rise? "Our faith had been in vain". Or, as Thomas Aquinas put it in Adoro te devote, "Truth himself speaks truly, else there's nothing true." Christianity is a religion, in the mainstream, which preaches an objective truth exists. Unless you grant that the speaker had some special authority, statements like "you will be judged according to how you judge others" are just, like, your opinion. Christianity says they are true, even if you reject them. 86.164.26.163 (talk) 15:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

See http://multilingualbible.com/1_corinthians/15-14.htm and the context from verse 9 to verse 19.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Pfly -- I have to second 86.164.26.163 on this one. Much less is known about Buddha than about Jesus from a historical point of view: -- to begin with, Jesus' birth and death dates are known within 5 years or so, while it's extremely difficult to even assign Buddha to a specific century (based on available historical evidence). Also, much less is known about the historical details of India during Buddha's time than is known about the Roman empire during the reigns of Augustus and Tiberius. And there are prominent trends in Buddhism (especially Mahayana) which deemphasize the historical Gautama Sakyamuni by having him just be one detail within a whole grand cosmological scheme of multiple saviors from past and future epochs. By contrast, efforts to decouple the cosmic Christ from the historical Jesus (as it's sometimes expressed) have not been influential in Christianity, and are rejected by the traditional "orthodox" Christian mainstream... AnonMoos (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Number of Tribes and Reservations in the United States

The article on indian reservations in the United States says there are 'about' 550 tribes and 310 reservations. What are the exact numbers? --CGPGrey (talk) 12:15, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It depends. Some tribes are federally recognized, which means a lot, others are only state recognized, while others are struggling to be recognized at all. Technically, only the federal government can create Indian Reservations. The Indian reservation page seems to say that there are "550-plus recognized tribes" and "about 310 Indian reservations". Why it is vague I don't know. It seems that it should be something subject to exact numbers. Note that a single tribe may have more than one reservation, and some recognized tribes have no reservation at all. Still, it seems like something we should be able to keep abreast with. Pfly (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The situation is probably somewhat complicated by situations where what used to be one tribe has "split" into two, like the Cherokee, where there are Cherokee in Oklahoma (Cherokee Nation and United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians) and in North Carolina (Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians) and in which operate seperately by governance, but historically are the same tribe, so it complicates how you count them. There are probably many tribes like that. As of October, 2010 there were 565 Federally recognized tribes, but there are also many state-recognized tribes which don't have federal recognition. That number may be changing soon; Congress is currently working on passing a bill to recognize the Lumbee. See [3]. --Jayron32 12:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There are several reservations which are shared between two or more tribes like the Wind River Indian Reservation shared by the Eastern Shoshone and Northern Arapaho or occupied by semi-unified tribes like Fort Berthold Indian Reservation, home to Three Affiliated Tribes (Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nations). How you handle these might affect the number of reservations. Also recently recognized tribes may later acquire land to from a reservation. The Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan only got their 147-acre reservation in 2009. The highest number I see on this map is 303 but the number are in no order and I might have missed something higher. Rmhermen (talk) 13:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The Point of the Compact of Free Association

Is this understanding of the Compact of Free Association correct: the United States gives the governments of those countries money in exchange for being able to run their militaries?

Are there any benefits to the citizens of the Association countries? Is it easier to travel to the States or get US citizenship? --CGPGrey (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. doesn't run their military, the U.S. is their military. And as far as benefits regarding residency and citizenship, that is covered pretty well in the article itself you linked. You can think of the Compact of Free Association as part of the continuum between "U.S. Statehood" and "Completely unrelated sovereign nation". In other words, they aren't like Hawaii, but they also aren't like Australia. The status of those countries lies on the "sovereign state" side of the line, but just barely. In many respects, their status is not all that different from Commonwealths like Puerto Rico, except in some small ways that allow them to claim sovereignty where Puerto Rico doesn't. But even Puerto Rico is recognized as more sovereign than other U.S. territories. It's a complicated situation, and doesn't allow easy categorization into convenient binary choices. --Jayron32 13:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Am I correct to assume that the US wants to be their military to have strategic outposts in the Pacific? Otherwise why would the US want to give them financial support. Also, the article is mute on the topics of citizenship, taxes, etc. --CGPGrey (talk) 13:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Under "Economic provisions" it has numerous statements which indicate the relationship of the residents of those countries with mainland U.S., including "The U.S. treats these nations uniquely by giving them access to many U.S. domestic programs..." (and following) and "Most citizens of the associated states may live and work in the United States, and most U.S. citizens and their spouses may live and work in the associated states.[3] In 1996, the U.S. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act included removing Medicaid benefits for resident aliens from these states. (Most other resident aliens have a five-year waiting period.)". They are not citizens of the U.S., but they have rights which lie between citizens and non-citizens. The article also has further information under the "2003 renewal" section, which covers some of the changes to these statuses from the original compact. Residents of these states do not pay taxes to the U.S., but do pay taxes to their own national governments; as covered in the individual articles about them. --Jayron32 14:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

One big benefit is that they are safe from invasion by their neighbors, which otherwise might be a threat for such small nations. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

High Chief vs Chief

Why were Indian chiefs always refer to as chiefs while Polynesian chiefs were high chiefs? When and why did the difference started?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 18:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Why is Luxembourg led by a Grand Duke, and why were the leaders of the Habsburg family Archdukes, and why was William the Conquerer only a Duke? Why did Ireland have a High King? It probably has to do with a difference in heirarchical structure; i.e. the High Chief would have had subordinate chiefs under him, ruling smaller realms or owing him fealty. Native American tribes had the equivalent of High Chiefs as well, see Sachem.--Jayron32 23:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Chief is an English term, different tribes used different terms. See Category:Titles and offices of Native American leaders. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 00:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Wich date of the race is correct?

There are many links that containing several different dates of the race between Tom Thumb (locomotive) and the horse. Wich date is correct August 18 1830 [4] [5] [6] or September 18 1830 [7] [8] or August 25 1829 [9]? If August 25 1829 is not the date of the race then there is a mistake in Wikipedia here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1829_in_rail_transport. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

According to Anthony J. Bianculli's Trains and Technology: Locomotives, 'In August of 1830 the tiny Tom Thumb carried B&O directors thirteen miles along the road in one hour and twelve minutes. The return trip was made in fifty-seven minutes, excluding four minutes for a water stop midway. Tom Thumb's successful run will ever be overshadowed by the loss of a fateful race with a horse, generally, but wrongly, reported to have occurred on the return trip with the directors.' So when was it? 'There is strong evidence that the contest occurred on 18 September 1830'. The phrase 'strong evidence' suggests that the precise date can't be proved beyond all doubt. --Antiquary (talk) 09:24, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. But that is about unother dates? Why they exist in some links? There they have been took from? Do you know? Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 10:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

US airforce, served Germany

Trying to locate a girl born to a young airforceman serving in Germany approx 1966-70. I have fathers full name and possible first name of mother and Christian names of child. Girl may have been born in an air force base hospital in Germany or maybe a regular community hospital. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

You might as well list whatever info you have. StuRat (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Germany has very strict privacy laws, so you will not be able to search birth records, for example. There may be organizations or Internet bulletin boards where people seeking their biological parents might post queries. Those kinds of venues might be your best hope, unless you have more information that would allow you to track down the mother or child. Marco polo (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

But if she was born at a US Air Force base, wouldn't US privacy laws apply to those records ? StuRat (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

China

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is China going to take over the world? --75.10.48.39 (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC) It says at the top of this page "The reference desk does not answer requests for opinions or predictions about future events." --Colapeninsula (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC) It might be helpful to note that there were similar predictions about Japan back in the 1970's and 80's. However, they eventually lost their competitive advantage of starvation wages, and so will China. StuRat (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC) The decline of Japan had relatively little to do with it no longer being a lowest-wage-cost producer (something which happened many years before the beginning of the "lost decade")... AnonMoos (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC) See discussion on the talk page. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 22:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Why hasn't China taken over the world? --75.10.48.39 (talk) 23:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Why did you expect China to take over the world? HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

There are not as many people in China who have experienced the disappointment of wealth. --DeeperQA (talk) 08:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Traditionally, China has had no interest in taking over the world, they saw little point in trying to rule over a bunch of foreign barbarians when they have all China, and sought only to extract a little tribute from those closest to them. 79.66.99.126 (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice that there is only one true tradition: all traditions are subject to change. What China did or not do during her past doesn't bind the country's current leadership. They may change laws, dismiss treaties, change habits, create new traditions. Future leaders of China (or any country of the world) may want to take over the world. If they are truly able to pull it of is another matter. Flamarande (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Everybody Wants to Rule the World. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Does China have the resources to take over the world? --76.211.88.37 (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Not with its current military. It can't even take over Taiwan for Pete's (Mao's?) sake. (I should qualify that. It might be able to conquer the island, but at an unacceptable cost.) Also, its government is more concerned about staying in power than taking on additional risks. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Like the players of the traditional prisoners' dilemma game, most nations have found that it is always in their interest to cooperate, as long as other nations are not defecting. Our cooperation technology continues to increase, but problems with, for example, finance, have long kept nations from being able to optimize the extent to which they cooperate. All indications is that this is becoming easier.

However, I would like to get to a related question. China has a surplus of men and a deficit of women. Does this destabilize China's politics or make it more likely that they would be aggressive? 76.254.20.205 (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)