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.
Why do Pinkerton and McClernand have their right hands stuck into the tops of their jackets in this photo? It almost looks as if they are reaching for a concealed weapon! And why doesn't President Lincoln have his right hand stuck into his jacket? Thanks everyone!!! 121.44.83.127 (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[1] "The hand was placed in the jacket or a pocket or resting on a fixed object so that the subject wouldn't move it [or his other hand] and cause a blurred image. Try holding your hands at your sides motionless for fifteen minutes or so-it's not easy." Shii(tock)05:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "hand in jacket" predated photography, and was more a style than a motion control technique. This is not a photo of Napoleon.
Indeed, I worked as a museum docent one summer, and learned that a photo of a person with one hand in his jacket from the early 1850s or late 1840s was because it was a common practice to imitate famous poses; in that one, imitating a famous painting of Napoleon, as shown at right (great caption :-)
Although, regarding the hands, how did they keep their eyes open long enough to be able to hav ethem shown? Or, are blinks so quick it didn't matter?209.244.187.155 (talk) 01:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blinks are indeed to quick to matter. The amount of time that your eyes are open far outweighs the amount of time they are closing/closed. Dismas|(talk)09:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that wording was an abbreviated version of something like, "In the same vein of thinking by which we are regarding the hands, how did they keep their eyes open long enough to be able to have them shown?"Bus stop (talk) 21:12, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, Napoleon had a very practical reason for his hand there. Apparently he had a sickness and that area needed support. This was revealed in a post mortem. So, as was already stated this pose became popular. This question was asked before in 2007, on this same page. Nelson had, too, a very practical reason for his hand there, as he had a war injury that needed support. MacOfJesus (talk) 13:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We all know that Hitler and the Nazis killed (or caused to be killed) six million Jews in WWII. But how many Jews didn't they kill? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.236.34 (talk) 06:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the six million Jews came from Poland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Holland, Hungary, Romania, Russia, Italy, France, so finding the number of Jews in Germany in 1933 wouldn't give an accurate figure. It might be better to look up the number of Jews in countries that the Nazis later conquered or were allied with.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has an article on the Holocaust. In two places it says that there were 7,300,000 Jews in occupied Europe at the time and about 78% or 5,700,000 were killed. The numbers are to some extent estimates and the article mentions various other numbers, as well as other criteria for which victims to count. But if those numbers are correct, then that would leave about 22% or 1,600,000 survivors. --Anonymous, 09:00 UTC, June 14, 2010.
More than 90% of the Jews in Scandinavia were killed, for starters. But as Mel Gibson would say, "It was WAR, Dianne!" What a dick. 63.17.67.213 (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That number can't be correct. The number of Swedish Jews killed would have been very low (Sweden was a neutral country), and the article Rescue of the Danish Jews states that 99% of Danish Jews survived the Holocaust. The article Holocaust in Norway states that "In the middle of the occupation of Norway by Nazi Germany, there were at least 2,173 Jews in Norway. At least 775 of these were arrested, detained, and/or deported." If you estimate that there was around 8,000 Jews in Denmark, 10,000 Jews in Sweden (estimate based on History of the Jews in Sweden) and around 2,200 in Norway, then it would seem that around 4% of Scandinavian Jews perished in the Holocaust. --Soman (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. Now I realize: In the mid-90s I saw the numbers for Latvia and Lithuania (about 85% combined), and somehow 15 years later my mind played a trick on me and those two "northern" names got conflated into "Scandinavia" (the figure in Norway was 45%). But Mel "Don't go there Dianne" Gibson is still a dick. 63.17.59.215 (talk) 11:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 1938 Yearbook gives an estimated population of 15,525,000 in the world, more than half of whom lived in areas the Nazis would conquer. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The question would seem to be aimed at being offensive. Whether it succeeds or not is anyone's guess. It is a question that can be answered on a factual basis. But it also may be a comment. That would depend on interpretation. Bus stop (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I need to confirm or correct the spelling of the name Akhmetchetka, an internment camp to which thousands of Jews were sent to die in WWII Transnistria. (It appears on that page as a red link with this spelling.) An approximation (lacking possible diacritics) of the Romanian spelling is Acmecetca. -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] Further from the OP: the Anglicized spelling is as above in the Encyclopedia of the Holocaust (1990, vol. 4, p. 1475), so I suppose I do need the Romanian spelling after all. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Russian spelling is Ахметчетка, found at the Yad Vashem site here. Akhmetchetka would be a suitable transliteration of that. As Warofdreams says above, the Romanian spelling Acmecetca shows up in Google Book Search. There are no diacritics in what is visible of the original books.--Cam (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correction! Despite the Yad Vashem spelling, it seems a much more common Russian spelling is Акмечетка which would be transliterated Akmechetka.--Cam (talk) 02:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OP, expanding the query: Can we determine what was the source language of this name, and was it a local place name as well as that of the camp? -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This Ukrainian page refers to Акмечетка, as well as Богданівка, and Доманівка (Akmechetka, Bogdanivka and Domanivka) as villages (села). -Ka seems to be a common ending of village names. From more Googling, Ak-Mechet (White Mosque) appears to be a common Turkic place name.--Cam (talk) 12:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Wiki page for the 1941 Odessa massacre states: " A further 10,000 Jews were taken on a death march to three concentration camps near Golta: Bogdanovka, Domanovka and Acmecetca." Further more there is a survivor account of the Acmecetca Death Camp on the Nizkor Project site here: http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/c/carmelly-felicia/cervinski-david.html
"The name of the Acmecetca death camp came from a nearby large Ukrainian village, in the Domanovca area, the district of Golta, which was along the western bank of the River Bug"
This page also gives detailed historic background to this testimony was provided by Professor Samuel Aroni explaining place names that have since been modernised or Russofied.
I would also humbly ask that the pages for Transnistria and Moldova are updated to contain this very important information on these Nazi concentration camps, which are also missing from that list too. 03:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)Pauliepauln (talk)
A friend of mine was born in India in 1984, then after two years his parents letf india and returned home to their native country b/cos they are non indians. According to the 1955 citizenship act which was ammended in 1986 and then commenced on the 1st of july 1987, i want to know if he is elligible to obtain an Indian citizenship or if he is elligible to be an Indian citizen by birth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.184.81.144 (talk) 11:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Going purely by the existing information in our article Indian nationality law, the answer is "it depends". It says: "Any person born in India on or after 26 January 1950 but prior to the commencement of the 1986 Act on 1 July 1987 was a citizen of India by birth". If your friend's birth information is accurate, then he would appear to have been born a citizen of India even though his parents were not Indian citizens.
The article also says: "Indian children ... automatically lose their claim to Indian citizenship if at any time after birth they acquire a citizenship of another country by, for example, naturalisation or registration — even if the acquisition of another citizenship was done as a result of actions by the child's parents". In other words, if your friend has another nationality now, and another passport, he has probably lost his claim to citizenship by birth in this way.
If you read the sections on Overseas citizenship of India and the Persons of Indian Origin card, either might apply to your friend's situation (with certain exclusions), but they do not involve a change of citizenship or nationality and may not be what he wants. Someone in his position would be left with the options of seeking citizenship by registration or by naturalization, if he meets the criteria for them. For example, our article says that "a person of full age and capacity who ... was earlier citizen of independent India, and has been residing in India for one year immediately before making an application for registration" is eligible to apply.
Please note that this is not any kind of legal or official advice - I have just looked at our article and picked out a few clauses for you to think about in relation to your friend. If he wants to apply for Indian citizenship, he will have to contact the authorities or a legal expert, and make a formal application. Karenjc12:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
War between the states of the United States of America
I have a question. Can the individual states that make up the United States of America theorically go to war with each other? Could Texas declare war on Arizona, North Dakota vs Montana, etc? I know that it would never be permitted by the US federal government but I have someone at work who takes an interest in US law that claims that each state has the right to do just that. Thank you. 208.38.1.178 (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article on the American civil war suggests that it's possible for the states to go to war. On the other hand, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution reserves to Congress the power to declare war, raise armies, establish a navy, and so forth. --- OtherDave (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Interesting question. I don't know legally if a state could declare a war on another state without first seceding from the Union, as happened in the United States Civil War. Also, if North Carolina (I live there) declared war on South Carolina, it would be mighty hard to fight, as individual states are not permitted to have armies. Falconusptc22:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They can't legally secede, can they? They certainly couldn't declare war - any soldier killing someone would be guilty of murder, since there is no recognised defence of your state being at war. While they aren't allowed armies, they do have national guard units, and a right to bear arms. --Tango (talk) 22:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, secession is illegal, or more precisely unconstitutional, thanks to Texas v. White. States are supposed to resolve important disputes through the United States Supreme Court, which has the exclusive right to hear "controversies between two or more states", although I don't think any such cases have actually happened. Xenon54 (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Supreme Court frequently adjudicates interstate disputes. One of the more interesting relatively recent cases was New Jersey v. New York which decided once and for all which state Ellis Island is in. Can't believe we don't have an article for this. —D. Monacktalk16:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One minor reason they have their own military forces is so that in the extremely unlikely situation that the federal government ever starts behaving like the Nazis or the USSR they can resist. That's war I guess.--178.167.218.19 (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was the reason the public are allowed to bear arms, not the reason for the existence of the national guard. --Tango (talk) 23:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a bit of a grey area. Technically speaking, if Texas decided to go to war with Arizona (god willing - I'll sell tickets), it wouldn't be illegal so much as an act of revolution or rebellion (If Texas did not declare itself an independent state first, it would be a rebellion, if it did, it would be a revolution or secession). The constitution has a power similar to a treaty, except stronger - it binds the states together of their own free will. If a state wanted to secede all they really need to do is to stop paying attention to constitution and the the Federal government (if necessary, arresting or deporting federal agents, citizens not of that state, judiciary above the level of the state supreme court...). I'm uncertain where the loyalties of the national guard lie - if they respond to the governor they would stay with the state; if they respond to the president they would be compelled to stand with federal troops, unless whoever the leader for the guard from that state decided otherwise. --Ludwigs223:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Violent revolutions and rebellions are illegal, as is a peaceful unilateral secession. A state could try would you describe, but they wouldn't succeed unless the rest of the union decided to let them. The national guard are under the control of the governor, I believe, but if it came down to it the individual members of the guard would decide for themselves who to side with. --Tango (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, but my point was that 'legality' is a function of 'legitimacy', and the notion of governmental legitimacy disappears at the moment that true revolution breaks out. Otherwise we'd be forced to say (for instance) that the current government of Iraq is illegal because it is in violation of the legitimate rules that Saddam Hussein instituted as leader. It's a "he said/she said" situation - the US government would be saying "no you're not separate, you're still a state", and Texas would be saying "F%ck that, we're not a state, we're separate", and the situation could only be resolved by military or diplomatic means, because Texas would reject the legitimacy of the various branches of the federal government to decide the issue.
Of course, this would never happen - there's no incentive for a state to secede that would make it worth its while. the last time this kind of issue got raised, mind you, was with Martha's Vineyard, which did a little sabre-rattling about seceding from the Union over - I think - property taxes. That was a bit of silliness; the navy could have re-conquered MV with 3 overweight marines and a surplus vietnam era patrol boat. but it was at least ostensibly serious. --Ludwigs201:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, there are no rules in war, so nothing prevents one U.S. state from going to war against another. OtherDave is incorrect when he writes, "Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution reserves to Congress the power to declare war, raise armies, establish a navy, and so forth" (emphasis mine). It grants the federal government these powers, but they are not exclusive. (See enumerated powers.) Nothing in the Constitution prohibits states from forming their own armies and they do of course have their individual National Guard units. The federal government does have the power to take over command of National Guard troops so it is unlikely the President would allow them to be used in an interstate war, but in theory nothing prevents a state from raising troops separate from the National Guard or from using state police in an belligerent way against another state. —D. Monacktalk00:01, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The states do not have the right to do that, no, as Xenon54 noted with a reference. If a state were to claim it was seceding today, it would not have help from anybody in the National Guard who decided to follow their oath. Comet Tuttle (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be great if we could prevent war (and all other undesirable happenings) by simply declaring "You do not have the right to do that". If only. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Several points to consider — (1) If Texas and Arizona went to war, we'd presumably see New Mexico get into action on one side or the other; it would be rather difficult for the two to fight otherwise. (2) States can legitimately have militaries: that's what the militias are. And no, the National Guard isn't equal to the militia; at least Ohio declares that all adult males are part of its militia. (3) Read Toledo War for what just almost was a military action between Ohio and the Michigan Territory [which would soon become Michigan]; both sides mustered their militias, and shots were fired, although only into the air. If Congress hadn't acted by declaring the disputed land to be part of Ohio — which was possible because Michigan was only a territory; Congress can't subtract land from states without their permission — violence might have happened. Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the National Guard is not a militia. The closest modern equivalent of the old militias are known as State Defense Forces. These are the units, mostly now trained for disaster relief, that cannot be federalized. —KevinMyers01:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem! The answer is right there in the last sentence of Article I of the Constitution. States are prohibited from engaging in war unless they are "actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay", or have the consent of Congress. So it would be unconstitutional for one state to just declare war on, or to just attack, another. --Anonymous (Canadian), 03:54 UTC, June 15, 2010.
Aside from the legality, there have been near-conflicts between the states. Arizona sent National Guard and militia units to the California border in 1935, in an attempt to intimidate workers building a water diversion project. See [10.] DOR (HK) (talk) 09:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, though, if a state did seccede from the union, it would no longer have to comply with federal laws, not being part of the country that created them, and therefore could do whatever it wanted. However, the USA did agree back in I think 1929 to an international agreement not to conquer any territory belonging to another country, so whether they would be allowed to recapture the secceded state, should they win the war, might be up for debate. Presumably if one state did seccede and invade another, the rest of the country would fight to defend it. Unless it was over an issue which divided the whole country, leading to another civil war. 80.47.172.225 (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the oddness in this question - seceding legally is nearly impossible. Congress is never going to say "Sure thing, see ya!" if a state asks it for permission to secede. A much more likely scenario is that a state would declare secession, and then Congress and the President would mull over whether it was worthwhile to drag the state back into the union, kicking and screaming. For instance, there was a distinct possibility in the Civil War that Lincoln and congress might simply have accepted the south's secession, in which case we would now have two republics instead of one. nobody really wanted that war. --Ludwigs215:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's extremely politically unlikely, especially in any short-term scenario, but it's certainly not impossible that certain states might want to secede, or that Congress might actually let them do so, depending on the circumstances. It's not going to happen anytime soon, obviously, but that's a far cry from "never." Who knows what the politics of the year 2300 will be? --Mr.98 (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Supposing north and south had either stayed separate in the 1780s, or had split without immediate conflict in the 1860s - what would have happened in the western territories? Who would have controlled them? Would the south have found itself hemmed in? Would there have been a war anyway, over the western territories? ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the pressing problems that led to the formation of the U.S. Constitution was that small scale border wars were occurring. The states had divergent interests. No one had legitimacy to rule on such disputes. Nullification was a popular movement in the South during the Jacksonian era. It was argued that any state could judge whether a federal law was constitutional. Jackson argued that the union was eternal. The states did not form the union; he argued that the people did. Hence the preamble, "We the people" rather than "we the states." As an abstract notion, I've always found credible arguments both ways. The Civil War settled the issue by the superior firepower and resources of the North. The resolution was political more than legal. Jackson also taunted the U.S. Supreme Court to enforce its orders recognizing Indian rights with the federal army, which he controlled. Time has settled the legitimacy of the eternal union. Whatever may have existed at ratification, practice has made the union inviolable
All my readings on the Civil War era certainly reveal that no principal actors wanted a dispute, save for the abolitionists. My view (and this is subjective) is that the North and South were intertwined that one side could not dismiss the either.75Janice (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)75Janice.[reply]
This discussion could use references. I became an armchair scholar, too. My views are impressions from reading heavily in this area. True scholarship would be nice.75Janice (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)75Janice[reply]
Quick armchair summary: The failure of the founding fathers to abolish slavery up front, coupled with the inevitable expansion of the nation and the debate over slave vs. free in the new territories, ensured that a conflict would inevitably arise. Basically it was a time bomb set by the founding fathers, albeit one that was needed at the time, or there would have been two nations - and conflict would have arisen anyway, for the same reason. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 02:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Bugs is right, but there were a lot of border wars at the time, especially in Illinois and in the new territories south of it. The per-Civil war time wasn't the least bit settled for states like Missouri and Tennessee and Kentucky. Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My grandfather told me about a sci-fi book he read when he was younger entitled The Flying Wing. Unfortunately, I have been unable to track it down. He said the story had to do with a large V-shaped plane that flew around the world. When it was running low on fuel, it would fly through a storm and store captured lightning strikes in a battery cell.
I didn't really know what else to do, so I went to Amazon.com, typed in The Flying Wing and sorted by publication date. I then found the page that contained books from the forties and fifties. I found a book called "The Flying Wing. A Lucky Terrell Flying Story" from 1946. Is this it? The ASIN number (which seems to be in place of the ISBN number, I can only guess as to why) is "B000P8DWHU" or "B000FIITGY" (there seem to be two different versions on Amazon). Also is the "Flying Wing Mystery," ASIN "B001NPMNBA". You can find these books on Amazon by typing in the ASIN number in the search field. I hope this is what you are looking for! Falconusptc02:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: the ASIN is assigned by Amazon to identify each book they have. Usually it's the same as the ISBN number, but I guess that for some reason the books that turned up don't have ISBN numbers (either that, or there's a glitch with their system).Falconusptc02:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ISBNs became standard in 1970, following the development of the SBN in the 60s. Books published before that date don't have ISBNs, hence Amazon's move to assign them with their own identifying number. Gwinva (talk) 03:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also found the Lucky Terrell book by Canfield Cook; here's a picture of it. I can't find anything to confirm any lightning-power and round-the-world elements in it, though. What's visible at Google Books of this discussion of the book (unfortunately, Google's view omits what are probably the most relevant pages) seems to indicate a jet-powered craft rather than anything involving lightning. Deor (talk) 02:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what the pages say, but if it's jet powered, the engines on the cover are drawn in error - they have propellers. Falconusptc02:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The book I linked to in my second link says that the fictional plane "adds jet propulsion to supplement the counter-rotating propellers". Deor (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just by the way, airplanes with both jet engines and propellers have existed in real life. See Convair B-36 for the model I know about. --Anonymous, 03:45 UTC, June 15, 2010.
As an aside, if the booked linked above features an "intrepid Texas flying ace returned from the war and working for a prominent American plane manufacturer," why is an RAF roundel featured on the spine? Gwinva (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Answering my own question, I discover Robert "Lucky" Terrell is an American flying in the Royal Canadian Air Force, who transfers to the RAF, flies Spitfires, then transfers again to Bomber Command... Gwinva (talk) 03:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the effort everyone! I'll have to ask my grandpa if that is the one he was talking about. He might have confused the lightning thing with something else he read. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
