Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 June 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< June 2 << May | June | Jul >> June 4 >
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.


Contents


[edit] June 3

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [[1]]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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." [2] 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: [3],[4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. 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?  --LambiamTalk 22:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Presidential flag
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)

[edit] 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. [9] 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.[10] --Ghirla-трёп- 13:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
An English translation is available here.[11] --Ghirla-трёп- 06:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.  --LambiamTalk 22:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)