Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 February 18

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.

February 18

Presidential bodyguard

Okay, so Lincoln had one incompetent bodyguard with him at Ford's Theatre. When did the President of the United States first acquire a bodyguard? Did Washington have one? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Our article on the US Secret Service (Early Years section) says they assumed formal repsonsibilty for Presidential protection in 1902. Dalliance (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Washington had the Commander-in-Chief's Guard, including Thomas Hickey. Warofdreams talk 09:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Washington didn't have the Commander in Chief's Guard as president, just during the war, a decade before he became president. Hickey wasn't a bodyguard per se, just a private in a security unit. —Kevin Myers 14:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Here is a book for free online reading, ""Through Five Administrations : Reminiscences of Colonel William H. Crook, Body-guard to President Lincoln" by Crook, W. H. (william Henry), 1839-1915 " which might have some information on the guarding of the President, 19th century style. Edison (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Here we go. Apparently Franklin was the first who seriously wanted to avoid being Pierced. Thanks all. Hopefully there's the makings of an article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC)Here is a book for free online reading, "Through Five Administrations : Reminiscences of Colonel William H. Crook, Body-guard to President Lincoln" by Crook, W. H. (william Henry), 1839-1915 " which might have some information on the guarding of the President, 19th century style. In 1864 the DC police department assigned four police officers to guard Lincoln. The author joined that detail January 4, 1865. Two policemen accompanied Lincoln wherever he went from 8 am to 4 pm. One policeman was on duty 4 pm to midnight, and was relieved at midnight by another who stood guard until 8 am.(pages 1-2). The night guard was to accompany Lincoln if the left the residence, and otherwise to patrol the corridor outside his room. They were armed with revolvers. Lincoln was of the opinion that a determined assassin could kill him despite guards and precautions. P.45 tells of the sort of screening that was done of unknown visitors who wished to talk to Lincoln, in this case likely one of those plotting the assassination. When Lincoln entered Richmond in March 1865 he was accompanied by one policeman and 12 armed sailors. Officer John Parker rather than the author (Crook) was on duty the evening of the assassination (p 68).P 72 notes Parker's absence from the usual spot for the guard outside the theatre box. P 92 and 93 describes armed "cranks" trying to force their way in to see the new President Andrew Johnson. Nov 1865 Crook became a "private policeman " guarding the President(p94).Crook said the Secret service at that time (1867) was very politically involved, with one official offering $10000 for evidence of collusion between Johnson and Jefferson Davis(p 208), and with incidents of bribery and perjured court testimony(p211), indicating the organization was not the apolitical force we know and respect today. Edison (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Help needed to identify type of fallacy

Some government minister of some country said this in a speech to a particular group of people:

"Biting on wood is good for you. Dont believe those folks who said that biting on wood is bad."

Apparently biting on wood is a political issue which the minister is using to appeal to certain demographics. But the problem is: no one ever said that biting on wood is bad.

Is this even a fallacy? If so, which type? There are so many here in wikipedia i dont know where to start. Thanks 115.164.42.81 (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that comes under fear mongering. In this case the object of the fear is an imaginary propaganda campaign, rather than an imaginary apocalypse, disease, invasion, or so forth, but the basic idea is the same: Did you know that you have enemies? Well now you do - but I am on your side! Therefore vote for me. 81.131.29.156 (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A form of Ignoratio elenchi? --Mr.98 (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

This is plainly just a special case of the straw man fallacy. Vranak (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It isn't, though. That was the first answer I considered, but the purpose of a straw man is to misrepresent an argument which challenges your position. In the situation the OP is describing, there is no argument which challenges the minister's position, and he has no interest in arguing a case, even by misrepresentation. He simply wishes to be seen to be on the side of the people whose affection he wants to win. The superficial resemblance to a straw man is a red herring. 81.131.27.250 (talk) 13:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes I said special case, meaning that it isn't precisely a straw man by its formal definition, but it's so similar we may as well just call it that rather than dig up obscure and lesser-known terminology. Vranak (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Edison was well known for biting wooden phonographs to hear through bone conduction what his deaf ears could not. His tooth marks on his phonograph can be seen today. He also bit the wood of pianos. By association, early 20th century folks probably had a positive image of wood biting, at least by deaf people. A "bad association" with humans biting wood was the ill reputed King John of England, who gnawed on wood and straw "like an animal" in a fit of anger when forced to sign the Magna Charta in 1215. Edison (talk) 13:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Dang that was a decent spot of gratuitous research. ;) Wnt (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

petitio principii. see also card stacking. In the sense that it attacks a group rather than addresses the political question, it is a form of ad hominem. It could also possibly be a form of argumentum ad populum if the speaker is arguing for populism. It will mostly depend on the context and what the speaker was hoping to accomplish here. Gx872op (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a fallacy. I believe this is a (crude) example of reductio ad absurdem. basically, someone is advocating something that will be bad for people by representing it as good for people, and this minister is using a hyperbolic analogy to point out that it isn't good for people no matter what some people might say. --Ludwigs2 22:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

How best to make known political policy wishes from the grassroots in the UK?

I have a few policy wishes that as a voter I'd like to see the government doing. What would be the best realistic way of making these suggestions? If I wrote to my MP, then only if they happened to be interested in the topic would it be taken up, and in any case I would like to reserve that for local issues. The wishes/suggestions are: 1) that the Bank Of England be given the broader goal of the long-term prosperity of the UK rather than just the foolishly narrow mono-goal of very low inflation; 2) that the scandalous rental discounts of (un-evictable) council tenants be done away with; 3) that the multi-million state benefit hand outs to the royal family be at least reduced to not more than what other European royals get, and preferably to no more income or property than what the Prime Minister enjoys. The things I have in mind are sending an email or letter, not doing a whole campain. I know its possible to do petitions somewhere on a downing street website, but nobodies going to sign up if they do not know they are there. Thanks 92.15.7.1 (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It might be better to support existing campaigns along the lines you mention. The campaign group 38 Degrees is worth a look. Dalliance (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dalliance. There's no reason why a politician would take notice of your views unless they agree, or they know that you have lots of support. Given that you're not looking to organise your own campaign, the only realistic way to demonstrate that support is to join an existing one. Warofdreams talk 13:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You could try starting an online petition at the 10 Downining Street website, and see if lots of people agree with you. The petition against selling-off Forestry Commission woodland was remarkably effective. If no-one agrees with you, you're probably wasting your time. It's a funny old game, democracy! Alansplodge (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Me too. Politicians are there to represent the people's wishes. Representing any individual person's wishes - well, that's a rather different story. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 17:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As "the people" consist of individuals, then good politics would represent as many individual people's wishes as possible. 92.29.119.194 (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Unless it is their own wishes. Politicians seem to like to represent those. Googlemeister (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Erm... that's kinda how a parliamentary democracy works. They tell us what they intend to do and if we like it, we vote for them. Simples. Alansplodge (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If we don't like it, then the voters are very discontented until they are able to vote them out at the next election some years away. Finding out what the grassroots want to do is a better way of doing things. And surely you've noticed that politicians pre-election promises are seldom kept? 92.29.119.194 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Just wondering, following the advice above, what group would someone join to support replacing the House of Lords with an elected senate or witan chosen by proportional representation from amongst leading figures in business, religion, education and so on? 148.197.121.205 (talk) 10:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't know, but a house of lords made up of celebrities would be a monumental disaster. 92.15.16.146 (talk) 11:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You could join either the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats - "Following the election of the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government in May 2010 it was announced that the two parties had agreed to establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation".[1]. Watch this space! Alansplodge (talk) 11:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Electoral Reform Society, perhaps - [2] Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

BTW, Witan would be a really good name for whatever replaces the House of Lords. "Senate" sounds rather too Americanesque. Alansplodge (talk) 12:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Except that the UK is not England, and going back to a term used a thousand years ago isn't exactly progressive.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

And neither the UK nor the USA are Ancient Rome, and going back to a term used two thousand years ago isn't exactly progressive.... DuncanHill (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

We all speak English and Witan is an English word. The defence rests its case. Alansplodge (talk) 14:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Or you could go a little further back and just have a thing. TomorrowTime (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

This is coming from a U.S. perspective, but certainly, in that country, (most) legislators are interested in what their constituents have to say about an issue. Some will keep running tabs on how many calls/letters/e-mails they get for and against a certain bill or issue. They may not vote that way -- the politician may independently have his or her own viewpoint that won't be changed by the opinions of constituents, but widespread support or opposition from the community on an issue may swing him or her one way or the other. At least you'll get back a nice form letter with his or her signature. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Copy-and-paste PhD

Recently, the German Defense Minister was discovered to have copied and pasted at least 118 times for his PhD dissertation of 400-some pages. How would universities around the world deal with that? Do you have a chance to remake it? Could the PhD of others of the same university be considered illegitimate? 212.169.181.138 (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As long as you accredit the source and put the " " marks correctly, you can copy paste quite a bit without getting out of line. Googlemeister (talk) 19:57, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Both universities that I work with would take back the PhD (one uses the word "recall" and the other uses the word "repudiate", both of which I read as "take back"). Each year, multiple students from a specific country (that I'm purposely avoiding to incriminate) get dismissed from the graduate school that I attend because they appear to be taught to copy-paste their papers in junior school before coming the United States for graduate school. -- kainaw™ 20:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Pls, Kainaw, pls. What country is that? It has to be a country with plenty of students immigrating to the US. Canada? Mexico? India? Quest09 (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

China is the usual culprit in these kinds of stories. There is some debate about whether there are culturally different expectations regarding copying, etc., there. See e.g. [3] [4] [5], just to pick a few of the most recent articles that come up when you Google "China plagiarism." --Mr.98 (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Reading regularly the German press, I know that he didn't bother to put the " " correctly or cite or whatever. And that's the problem. To the OP: in less notable cases, you can be sure that any serious university won't accept that and that your academic career is over. The same applies to invented data. Quest09 (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

A quick Google search confirms that some universities certainly do withdraw PhDs if plagiarism is discovered afterwards. [6][7][8]. I doubt whether anyone would discredit other degrees from the same institution on the grounds that a dodgy one got through, although eyebrows would be raised if a pattern emerged. Karenjc 20:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

As for the chance to remake it, you also have the chance to litigate in order to keep a title that has been revoked by your University. In the case of the Schön scandal, for another German example, the Administrative Court in Freiburg recently overturned the University of Konstanz's ruling, and Dr. Schön gets to remain Dr. Schön (for the time being). This was a case of falsifying data though, not plagiarism. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but Dr. Schön didn't invent the data of his PhD dissertation, but of scientific articles after it. Quest09 (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

According to Plagiarism#Praisings of plagiarism in art, playwright Wilson Mizner said "If you copy from one author, it's plagiarism. If you copy from two, it's research.". And I remember hearing a joke that went something like "I do research, you copy, they are outright thieves" though I can't find a reference for that. Astronaut (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Der Spiegel on February 19 said that he also, in his capacity as a government official, ordered a researcher at the parliament's research service to write a 10 page paper on the topic of his dissertation, and incorporated it in the dissertation, without crediting the researcher. Is that more than "failing to add quotation marks?" Edison (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think enough is known to figure out all the issues. Ghost-writers do exist - authors who voluntarily surrender all credit - and one might try to argue that certain works for hire don't require attribution. Conversely, someone might accuse Guttenberg of plagiarizing articles even if he were an author on them, because other co-authors existed - but he might have written those sections all on his own. Or what if he just presented those passages to other co-authors for a few comments? Things like plagiarism and copyright are seldom as clear-cut as people make them out to be. Wnt (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Symbol cask of amontillado

The coat of arms of Montresor-how does it relate to the characterization of Montresor, how does it relate to the plot, how does it relate to the theme of the story and does it relate to the irony of the story?

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. You may find our article The Cask of Amontillado useful to start. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Look at Nemo me impune lacessit for the inscription of his coat of arms. I wouldn't necessarily call it irony in itself, but it does add to the irony of the whole story. schyler (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The real meaning is that the cask contained Scotch whisky. --- OtherDave (talk) 02:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The reason your teacher asked you to answer this question isn't simply because she wants to know the answer- she probably already knows the answer- but because she wants you to have the experience of figuring out the answer. Education isn't so much about getting information as it is about learning to use your brain to work things out. Take it one step at a time, first identifying what the arms are, then applying them, first to the character, then to the plot, then to the theme. By then, you'll probably understand more about the story than you did before, enough to express an opinion about irony. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)