text:
Talk:The Plot Against America

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SebastianG1002.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous analysis
The article seems to take it as a given that Lindbergh was "anti-semitic." This is certainly not born out by Lindberg in his private life or from family and other sources in his immediate circle.

In his controversial Des Moines speech, and apparently no actual transcript is available, Lindberg criticised three groups he believed were leading America the push to bring America into the war. These were the Roosevelt administration, the British and the jews. There is no reason to believe he thought all jewish Americans were pro-war and his belief that jewish Americans were more pro-war than their non-jewish countryman may even have been true, although I have seen no opinion poll data to prove an argument one way or the other.

A large number of jewish americans at the time probably had good reasons to seek American intervention, Lindberg sought to win them over to the anti-intervention camp. He believed that war would enflame ethnic and political tensions at home and that this could not be in the interest of minorities.

Roth and other pro-interventionists, then and now, preferred to twist Lindberg's argument into a threat. This ignores thw well documented fact that many isolationists and pacifists were, ...perhaps misled by the experience of WW1, anticipating that World War Two, would bring depression, and perhaps even revolution and civil strife in it's wake. Looking at what happened globally after WW1 this was a not unreasonable expectation.

The article fails to pin Roth for ignoring the reality of a massive pro-war campaign by the both the Roosevelt administration and the British Operations (including BSC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Security_Coordination ) to bring the US into the war. These operatives were certainly keen to exploit any opportunities that came their way (including Lindbergh's gaffe?) and were not above dirty tricks (discussed at http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=25&articleID=285 ). Without context it gives less than half the story. In Roth's fantasy world there are no pro-war forces, only bigoted anti-war politicians.

At the same time, other comments from the time from FDR that could just as easily be interpreted as anti-semitic are forgotten.

For example, here is FDR quoted in JOSEPH E. PERSICO's "ROOSEVELT'S SECRET WAR. FDR AND WORLD WAR II ESPIONAGE." Random House NY 2002 Quote from Page 219-220 "After the North African landings, succeeded, the President went to Casablanca and, in a meeting with the French resident general at Rabat, delivered an astonishing opinion. "The number of Jews engaged in the practice of the professions- law, medicine etc.- should be limited to the percentage that the Jewish population in North Africa bears to the whole of the North African population, " he urged. "This plan would further eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany, namely, that while they represented a small part of the population, over fifty percent of the lawyers, doctors, school teachers, college professors, etc, in Germany were Jews." He had echoed the rationale that the Nazis had carried to barbaric limits." (Italics added) Persico's cited source for this is: p.308 Francis L. Loewenheim, Harold D. Langley, and Manfred Jonas, eds., ROOSEVELT AND CHURCHILL: THEIR SECRET WARTIME CORRESPONDENCE New York: Saturday Review Press / Dutton 1975

In fact Lindbergh's Des Moines speech sounds tame in comparison. (see http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/lindbergh/filmmore/reference/interview/anne06.html and http://www.charleslindbergh.com/pdf/092441_lindy.pdf ) Of course this does not "prove" FDR was anti-semitic or the opposite. His opinions didn't seem to stop him appointing Felix Frankfurter to the SCOTUS, who was the third jewish Supreme Court justice (Wilson appointed Louis Brandeis and Hoover appointed Benjamin Cardozo before him - source: http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-jewish-american-political-figures). Similarly Lindberg's opinions didn't stop him from having a close personal and business relationships with jewish friends like aviation pioneer Harry Guggenheim. He found Henry Ford's anti-semitic views distasteful.

The whole game of retroactively applying the standards and tabous of modern politically correctness to historical figures is playing a stacked deck to begin with. In FDR and Lindberg's day language the modern era's sensitivity to ethnic group labels was unknown. Lindberg's desire to keep America out of war was wholly honourable, even if in historical retrospect we may consider it ill advised.

The above quote is useful in defending Lindberg from modern deck stackers. Can you imagine what Roth would say if Lindbergh had said this? He has no qualms in charging Lindberg and Borah of promoting pogroms without the slightest evidence, ..and engages in some anti-Catholic bigotry of his own. Does Roth want to run some pogroms of his own? His political fantasy is just a travesty of history.

THe above section should be deleted. It does not appear to serve a Wikipedia purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.206.234 (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Alternative History as a Mode of Science Fiction
I just had somebody revert my addition of the "science fiction" category to this book. I realize that there is considerable prejudice against calling a novel by a mainstream writer "science fiction"; but that doesn't change the fact that alternate history is an old and honored branch of that genre, even if sometimes prettified by calling it "counterfactuals" or other labels. I don't want to get into a revert war; but I'd like to see the revert reverted--Orange Mike 18:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * To quote the Science fiction article: "Science fiction is a genre of fiction in which at least part of the narrative depends on the impact of science, either real or imagined, to generate settings or events which have not yet occurred in reality" (emphasis added). Roth's novel has no speculative science in it, not even any non-speculative science. I don't know how it can qualify as science fiction without the science part. Much alternate history qualifies as science fiction, but there is much that doesn't. --dm (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

 * That article is part of an 80-year-old argument about what is and isn't science fiction. This novel received the Sidewise Award, which is given out at the World Science Fiction Convention every year, and juried by a panel of science fiction fans and writers interested in the alternate history subgenre of science fiction. I'm sorry if we offend you by getting scifi cooties on this book. -- Orange Mike 04:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * I like science fiction but I also like Wikipedia to be accurate. Have you read The Plot Against America? It bears no resemblance to science fiction in any way. It is completely lacking in science, a necessary element of science fiction. While there's no formal definition of the genre, if this novel qualifies then it's hard to imagine what doesn't. I contend that alternate history is a separate genre from SF. Who gives out an award is irrelevant. The Nobel prizes are awarded by Swedes. That doesn't make Orhan Pamuk Swedish. Can you supply a source that calls The Plot Against America "science fiction" explicitly? --dm (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

 * If you're seriously interested, I could list URLs for dozens of sites discussing alternate history as a major subgenre of science fiction. I will quote one such, because it addresses the attitude that I'm seeing:

[http://www.beatrice.com/archives/000822.html "I've known since the buzz began that a lot of critics would be going out of their way to explain how Philip Roth's alternate history novel isn't science fiction--Berman does it by positioning Roth in a 'tradition' of Jack London, Nathanael West, and Sinclair Lewis--and Roth himself professes, " I had no literary models for reimagining the historical past," which actually isn't that surprising as I don't imagine Roth's read much science fiction in his adult life. Michael Gorra in the Times Literary Supplement goes a step further: "The Plot Against America offers a plausible description of a world that never was. It may not be one of Roth’s four or five best books. But nobody else would even have tried it..." Really? How about The Man in the High Castle? How about...oh, never mind. Anyway, I'm thrilled that Handler came as close to calling the novel "science fiction" as he could without actually using the forbidden words."] And at AlternateHistory.Com one can read: "...Alternate History novels, which are generally categorized as a type of science fiction." Science fiction has outgrown the Hugo Gernsback days where gadgets and inventions drove the plotlines; it's about alternate realities and imaginative novels discussing what happens if you change the givens of the universe, whether by inventing a faster-than-light drive or imagining a proto-fascist America. -- Orange Mike 15:40, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll concede that many, perhaps most, people with an opinion on the subject consider alternative history a subgenre of science fiction, but one should acknowledge that many others think it's a separate genre entirely. Understood broadly enough, all fiction changes "the givens of the universe." That's what makes it fiction. An interesting facet of The Plot Against America is that it describes an America not that different from the real one. It's an anti-Semitic America, but, I would argue, not "proto-fascist." I think it's telling that the writer you quote admits later in the essay that he hasn't read the book. --dm (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, it's an old discussion. However, I added a See Also section so that readers of the article may realize that Roth didn't write in a void, and that the idea of a Fascist America or Nazi-dominated America was not that new--one should mention one of Philip K. Dick's masterpieces, The Man in the High Castle, which is as sfnal or non-sfnal (it depends on one's point of view) as Roth's Plot, and has always been sold and bought as science-fiction. I'd say it's a matter of the glass being half-full or half-empty. --93.40.125.162 (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Have you read the book? The America depicted isn't Nazi or even fascist really. Don't be fooled by the swastika on the cover put there to sell books. The "see also" section you added is misleading and so I'll be removing it. —D. Monack talk 00:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

 * I have read The Plot and have also read Lewis' It Can't Happen Here and Dick's The Man in the High Castle, and can tell you that with all the differences in style and plot the three novelists are playing the same game, that is, imagining the US under a Fascist regime. In the novel Roth clearly says that Lindbergh admired Nazi Germany, and suggests that when he is elected he is actually acting as a Nazi agent, a puppet used to keep the US out of W.W.II. Have you read the novel? I am re-inserting the See Also section, because this novel cannot be kept isolated in a void--especially by people who are clearly not knowledgeable with all the three books involved, and who seem to be annoyed by certain political terms.--93.40.141.250 (talk) 10:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I'd agree with Monack in calling the U.S.A. of The Plot proto-fascist, perhaps; but not fascist in a full sense; just an authoritarian amplification and unleashing of the uglier underside of early 20th century U.S. culture. As such, it belongs not with novels of Nazi/fascist conquest such as Man in the High Castle; but rather with novels of surrender, appeasement and political degeneration such as It Can't Happen Here. It's still SF; but like It Can't Happen Here, is written by a novelist not known for SF, and is not marketed as SF. -- Orange Mike  |   Talk  13:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

 * Sorry if I repeat this question which may also sound a bit rude, but--have you read the novel? Not only it repeatedly links Lindbergh to the Nazi regime (Fascist Italy is out of the picture), but it clearly depicts Lindbergh's policies of racial discrimination against Jews--such as the relocation of Jewish families--plus pogroms aganist American Jews. Proto-fascist? Sure, there are no concentration camps as in Lewis or the Gestapo hunting for Jews as in Dick, but the Lindbergh administration is clearly presented as a quasi-Nazi regime, which resembles the Quisling government in Nazi-occupied European countries during W.W.II. Moreover, it is not sold as SF because publishers (and Roth) know all too well that SF is not a fashionable term in the book market today; but such alternate past/present narratives abound in the production of sf writers (not only Philip K. Dick, but also Keith Roberts, Ward Moore and many others). Anyway, we should try to assess the genre or subgenre of a novel regardless of what the blurbs say!

I strongly support, btw, the insertion of the See Also section in the article.--James.kerans (talk) 10:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Yes, the book links Lindbergh to the Nazis. That doesn't make him a Nazi. He's isolationist and anti-Semitic, but that's not the same thing as fascist. The U.S. depicted is no more Nazi than Switzerland was during the war.

 * I disagree with the idea that Lindbergh's administration is depicted as "quasi-Nazi" (whatever that means) or a Quisling government. Quisling was a puppet of the Nazis used to put a Norwegian face on German occupation. The USA in The Plot is not occupied by Germany and not even officially allied with Germany in WWII. Lindbergh is legitimately elected president and doesn't even threaten to end democratic elections which, I think, would be a minimum criterion for calling the government fascist.

 * As for calling the book SF, reasonable people can disagree about the novel's genre. If you can find a reliable source such as a newspaper book review that calls the novel "science fiction", then by all means add that to the article. —D. Monack talk 22:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I read an article on an Italian book magazine (I am Italian) which discussed the novel at length (not a simple review). It was published after they translated the novel into Italian. It did not obviously say that Roth is a sf novelist, but that Roth had written a sf novel, and connected it to Sinclair Lewis and Dick. I dimply remember it also mentioned another US novel about a Fascist government in the USA. I might add it to the secondary bibliography on the novel. As for Lindbergh being linked to the Nazi: it's quite clear, and Roth suggests that, that a US President who is sympathetic to Nazi Germany will keep the US out of the War, hence weakening the British Empire The novel depicts persecution of Jews: isn't that one of the main tenets of Nazism? Lindbergh was legitimately elected, you say: ok, also Hitler was legitimately elected, so what? Nothing in the novel, btw, tells readers that he does not threaten to end democratic election, while his government is not intervening in W.W.II and persecuting Jews. Those two policies are more relevant than the formality of not formally ending elections. The impression I got is that Lindbergh (in the novel) is simply taking time, waiting for the outcome of the war in Europe, ready to pull out the swastika flags once Britain is done for. This is an impression, I'll admit it, but other elements I have listed make the Lindbergh administration in the novel a case of closet Nazi government. --93.40.126.106 (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

No connection with Nazism, huh? What's that black swastika on the cover of the novel, then? Doesn't that make the connection evident, Monack? Or do you think that the commies put it on the cover, with Roth unaware of it? C'mon, that Lindbergh as he's depicted in the novel is a puppet of the Nazi is quite clear. Why does he disappear when the situation gets out of control? Re-read the novel, or read it. As for it beaing sf, take a look at this review: http://www.sfsite.com/12a/pa213.htm --James.kerans (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Never blame an author for what his/her publisher puts on the cover of a book; not even the Stephen Kings of the world get full control over that decision. -- Orange Mike  |   Talk  18:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

 * Blaming? Who's blaming who or what here, man? Reread my previous message. I don't know about King, but I don't think the publisher of Philip Roth may put something as controversial as a swastika on the cover of one of his novels (don't forget the Jewish descent of Roth) if Roth does not agree. If he accepted that symbol there, it means it had something important to do with the plot: it tells us something (as if it was necessary) about the real nature of the Plot Against America, that is, the links to Nazi Germany of the fictional Lindbergh administration. I am not blaming Roth, I am desperately trying to show you what's in the novel--so big I am amazed that somebody doesn't want to see it. The story is quite simple: the plot is a conspiracy organized by a right-wing American organization which is in cahoot with Nazi Germany. They win the elections thanks to Lindbergh's popularity and manage to keep the mighty US out of W.W.II, which means that Nazi Germany has a chance. The Lindbergh administration carries out several policies to discriminate Jews, until you have the Winchell Riots and the threatened pogrom in Newark. There's more than that in the novel, but the basic counterfactual political background is that. And, once again, who's blaming who or what?--James.kerans (talk) 19:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the publisher of Philip Roth may put something as controversial as a swastika on the cover of one of his novels (don't forget the Jewish descent of Roth) if Roth does not agree. If he accepted that symbol there, it means it had something important to do with the plot"???? What? You really don't know much about the publishing industry, do you? Publishers' reps are firmly convinced that swastikas on covers sell books; and Roth is highly unlikely to have been given any chance to veto such a marketing decision. -- Orange Mike  |   Talk  00:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

 * I know the publishing industry from within, having been a literary translator and having friends who work for important publishing houses. And I can tell you that what publishers can do with dead writers, or writers who are not famous and don't sell much, is absolutely NOT what they have to do when dealing with bestselling authors. If you put on the cover of a novel written by a Big Name like Roth something he doesn't want there, it may happen that next time his agent sells his next novel to another publisher, and if something like that happens there will be bloodshed in the house which lost the Big Name... we're not talking about a beginner, we're talking about a writer that any publisher would like to publish. Probably they showed the cover to Roth (or his agent) for approval. --James.kerans (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Before that book did so well, it is my understanding that Roth was regarded as, if not quite box office poison, somewhat past his sell-by date; thus, my assumption that he had little bargaining leverage when dealing with the marketing mavens. Perhaps you are right, though; I withdraw my over-swift accusation with an apology for excessive zeal engendered by knowing a lot of authors who get thus abused on a depressingly regular basis. -- Orange Mike  |   Talk  01:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I never said there was "no connection" with Nazism. I explicitly say, "Yes, the book links Lindbergh to the Nazis." I also point out that Lindbergh as depicted in the story is not a Nazi, that the U.S. isn't occupied by Germany, and that the cover of the book is irrelevant to what the novel is about. This is all true. Authors often have no control over the jacket design of their books and often don't care. And maybe Roth and the publisher both agreed to the swastika knowing it provides a sure-fire boost in sales.

 * The image depicted here is of a stamp with a swastika cancellation on it which appears in the dream of one of the Jewish characters in the novel. Part of the point of the book is that the exact nature of the Lindbergh administration is never made clear and the reader is left to question whether the main characters are legitimately fearful of their government or just paranoid. Saying the novel is about Nazis taking over the U.S. would be to strip out all nuance and ambiguity from the book.

 * As for the pogroms and persecution of Jews as evidence that the government is fascist, fascism and anti-Semitism are not the same thing. Most fascist governments were anti-Semitic, but so are many non-fascist governments. Fascist Spain gave refuge to Jews from other parts of Europe. Pogroms predate fascism by many centuries. People today tend to casually refer to any right-wing government they don't like as "fascist", but this term has a specific meaning. A central tenet of fascism is the single-party state. Lindbergh in the book may be a closet fascist with secret designs to usurp the Constitution, but this is never made explicit. —D. Monack talk 20:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but the whole issue should be in my opinion discussed in the article, as it is not a small thing, it is very important to understand the novel. Moreover the plot section is so small and superficial that those who read that part cannot get a fair description of what happens or does not happen in the novel. Maybe you or James Kerans might enlarge it as you seem to know quite well the book. --93.40.117.254 (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting edits of anonymous editor 24.48.182.26
I removed a criticism section that was simply a list of historical events not in the novel at least one of which occurs before the events of the novel. This is clearly POV. Any criticism needs to be sourced and attributed to a serious publication. --dm (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Plot Summary
This article would benefit from a plot summary. If anyone has read the book can you please write one? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 08:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Plot Against America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121016224330/http://locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Cmem2005.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Cmem2005.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Edits
I plan on adding some new content to the article and making other edits in the coming week. I plan on making a new Analysis section to help the article better fulfill Wikipedia's guidelines on the sections of a book article. The section will cover some of the analysis of the novel's themes that I have found in my research. I also plan on restructuring the Lead so that it references this new section and all of the other sections of the article. I hope to shorten the list of historical figures down to the figures most important to the story and turn that section into a Characters section that briefly describes the fictional main characters as well. Lastly, I plan on making some minor revisions to the Plot section to improve its clarity and presentation. An annotated bibliography of the sources I gathered for these changes is available here. SebastianG1002 (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

title: Talk:The Plot Against America


text:
KDAY

KDAY (93.5 FM, "93.5 KDAY") is a radio station that is licensed to Redondo Beach, California and serves the Greater Los Angeles area. The station is owned by Meruelo Media and airs a classic hip hop format. The station's studios are located in Burbank and its transmitter is in Baldwin Hills. KDAY also extends its signal coverage into the Inland Empire by adding a full power simulcast, KDEY-FM in Ontario, California to fill in all of the overlapping and gaping issues and problems in its eastern coverage area.

KDAY's HD Radio format is R&B

The original KDAY at 1580 AM
KDAY first signed on in 1948 as a 10,000-watt soul/R&B outlet at 1580 AM. Its call sign represented the fact that it was a " day timer"; i.e., it broadcast only during daytime hours and signed off every evening. It flipped to a top 40 format a short time later.

After his firing from WABC in November 1959, famed disc jockey Alan Freed arrived at KDAY and worked there for about one year. By that time the station had a 50,000-watt transmitter but was on-air only during the daytime.

In 1960, George Carlin, with his comedy partner Jack Burns, arrived in Los Angeles and were hired at KDAY for their comedic stylings. They performed in area coffee houses when the radio station went off the air at sunset and were subsequently discovered and performed on Tonight Starring Jack Paar. Carlin and Burns worked at the station for less than six months. In 1972, KDAY switched to album-oriented rock only to revert to soul/R&B in January 1974. KDAY moved its transmitter to Los Angeles in 1968, and concurrently upgraded to 50,000 watts day and night. FM stations such as KJLH grew in popularity in the early 1980s, cutting into KDAY's audience. KDAY fought back by hiring Greg Mack from KMJQ in Houston as music director in 1983. Mack eventually added hip hop music to the station's playlist to appeal to mostly young Black and Latino listeners. Dr. Dre and DJ Yella Boy became the first mixer DJs at the station. In the first ratings period under Mack's leadership, KDAY's ratings beat another Los Angeles Black AM station, KGFJ, and "began to enjoy a second life as the only rap-friendly station in town and, frankly, in the entire country." By September 1983, KDAY also upgraded its sound to AM stereo. Dan Charnas described KDAY's audio upgrade as "laughable" and "sounding like two tinny AM radios playing side by side."

After violence in the stands forced the cancellation of a Run-DMC concert at the Long Beach Arena for the group's Raising Hell tour, KDAY organized a "Day of Peace" on October 9, 1986. In a two-hour special, KDAY featured Run-DMC, singer Barry White, and boxer Paul Gonzales appealing to rival gangs to stop feuding and opened phone lines for callers to describe gangs' impact in their communities. There were no murders or incidents of gang violence that day. Within two weeks, the Bloods and Crips, the two largest gangs in Los Angeles, signed a peace treaty.

In 1990, Mack left KDAY that year to work for rival KJLH. Real estate investor Fred Sands, who also owned heavy metal station KNAC, bought KDAY the next year. On March 28, 1991, at 1 p.m., KDAY switched to a business format with call letters KBLA.

KDAY at 93.5 FM
KDAY was resurrected on 93.5 FM on September 20, 2004, offering a rhythmic contemporary format that emphasized old school hip hop, a nod to its AM heritage.

In April 2006, KDAY began moving away from rhythmic contemporary and toward an urban contemporary approach as the station refocused its target audience toward African Americans. This was in response to competitor KPWR (Power 106) de-emphasizing urban in favor of rhythmic contemporary in order to target Hispanic listeners. Due to sinking ratings, a month later, long-time hip-hop/R&B station KKBT eliminated hip hop from the format, and flipped to a mixture of urban adult contemporary (urban AC) and urban talk programs, similar in format to KHHT and KJLH. (Only afterwards did KKBT change its call letters and name to KRBV and "V100".) In addition, KDAY brought Steve Harvey on board on Memorial Day weekend in 2006; he had been released by KKBT the previous year. Weeks later, rival KKBT signed on Tom Joyner to carry his syndicated morning show there; however, in December 2006, KKBT would dismiss Joyner due to low ratings, partly attributed to Harvey's success.

On July 23, 2007, KDAY and sister station KDAI in Ontario, California temporarily switched from an urban contemporary format to rhythmic contemporary under the consultancy of Harry Lyles and newly installed program director Theo. In a statement to online trade publication All Access, Lyles commented on the changes: "I am very excited and thrilled to be working with Don McCoy, Roy Laughlin and Theo. All we're doing is playing to the taste of Los Angeles and if we play what they want, they will listen. With PPM coming, this will make things a lot more interesting in Los Angeles." The format turnback might have been spurred by Magic Broadcasting's July 19 sale of KWIE (96.1 FM, "Wild 96.1") in San Jacinto. Originally, the KDAY call letters were intended to be dropped in favor of the station picking up the KWIE calls as "Wild 93.5". For a time, the station only referenced itself as simply "93.5" on air until it could come up with a name and a call sign to fit the rhythmic format. This happened in July 2007, when the sale of KWIE to Liberman Broadcasting was completed and that station became KRQB. The KWIE call letters moved to the Ontario station, which at the time held the call sign KDAI. After the sale was completed, the format tweak ended up being only temporary; the intent was for KWIE listeners in the Inland Empire to migrate to the 93.5 FM signal as KDAY reverted to urban contemporary the following August.

On April 8, 2008, Radio One inked a deal with KDAY which saw the station pick up the former "Beat" branding, logo and several syndicated shows from Radio One. The move came after Radio One sold KRBV to Bonneville International, who in turn dropped KRBV's urban AC format the previous day; that station is now KKLQ. From that point, the station used the slogan "The Beat of LA", a nod to the popular hip hop station during the 1990s and early 2000s. One such personality who returned to Los Angeles radio following KRBV's flip was Michael Baisden, host of the syndicated afternoon show Love Lust and Lies which debuted on KDAY August 18.

On August 14, 2008, the station's signal was upgraded from 3.4 kW to 4.2 kW thanks to a new transmitter that improved coverage throughout the Los Angeles metropolitan area. The new tower replaced one that had been in use for fifty years. Also around this time, KDAY tweaked its mainstream urban format to a hybrid urban AC/urban talk approach — a direction similar to urban AC, but featuring current adult-friendly R&B music with on-air talk personalities and some hip-hop product — targeting an 18–49 audience. Most of KDAY's programming was being filled by syndicated shows during the day, except for DJ Theo's slow jam show Theo After Hours, which aired live weeknights. The same day, KWIE dropped its simulcast of KDAY and flipped to a rhythmic adult contemporary format branded "FLO 93.5". According to station management, the decision to tweak KDAY's format was due to Arbitron's plans to implement the Portable People Meter (PPM) in the Los Angeles radio market and where they believe they can tap into certain areas where they can attract the African American audience. The new changes resulted in R&R and Nielsen BDS removing the station from the Urban reporting radio panel in its August 29, 2008 issue.

These changes were not popular with KDAY's listeners. Criticism arose over dropping live airstaff in favor of increased syndicated content and replacing hip hop music with the urban AC/talk format; listeners claimed the owners had ruined the legacies of both KDAY and The Beat. Those upset with the new approach predicted its demise as it was already tried unsuccessfully at KKBT; they also felt that Los Angeles could not support two adult R&B outlets (the other being KJLH, as KHHT was a rhythmic AC outlet aimed at Hispanics).

Return to classic hip hop
There had been hints of possible changes at KDAY coming throughout mid-2008, which became evident in the station's decision to replace Mo'Nique's syndicated show in October 2008 for more music-driven local content. Another move would come with programming director Theo's exit several weeks later, with Adrian "AD" Scott becoming interim PD in addition to his Operations Manager duties. As a result, KDAY made a shift back to an urban format and was reinstated to the R&R/BDS Urban panel in January 2009. The following March, KDAY re-added local air personalities to its lineup, with DJ Dense taking middays and Tha Goodfellas, who had been handling afternoons and weekends, taking the evening slot. The Steve Harvey Morning Show was dropped on May 29, 2009, but later resurfaced on KJLH. In addition, Michael Baisden's nationally syndicated show, which aired in afternoon drive, was dropped on July 31, 2009. This was followed by Keith Sweat's nationally syndicated show, The Keith Sweat Hotel.

At the "Fresh Fest" concert at Nokia Theatre in downtown Los Angeles, hints were made on stage (including a new logo that was shown on all stage banners and screen graphics) that a full-blown format flip to resemble the original KDAY's classic hip hop sound would occur on August 17, 2009, at 7:30 a.m. At that time, after playing Boyz II Men's "End of the Road", the station dropped the "Beat" branding and reverted to KDAY, with Snoop Dogg's "Gin & Juice" ushering in the new format. Station spots between songs indicated that the previous syndicated fare was a programming mistake on the part of KDAY that did not reflect what Los Angeles fans wanted and that the station would "never do that again". The flip officially left Los Angeles as the largest market without an urban contemporary station until KHHT flipped back to that format as KRRL in 2015, replacing Houston in that distinction. (Houston would regain an urban contemporary outlet in KHHT's sister station KKRW, which flipped to that format over a year before KHHT.) A month later, in September 2009, KWIE would return to simulcasting KDAY under new call letters KDEY-FM.

In November 2009, KDAY management hired veteran programming consultants Bill Tanner and Steve Smith to help in the evolution of the station alongside program director Adrian Scott, new operations manager Brian Bridgman, and new general manager Zeke Chaidez. Tanner explained what was in store for KDAY's future: "Brian, Steve and I have offered some refinements based on our many years of experience in Los Angeles ... We're just getting started with the music. We will be adding jocks and more surprises in the weeks ahead." On-air music mixing returned to the station with the additions of Mr. AD, Eddy Xprs, Class1c, and DJ Dense.

On December 27, 2010, Magic Broadcasting announced it would sell KDAY and KDEY-FM to SoCal935, LLC for $35 million. At the time, SoCal935's principal investors Warren Chang and John Hearne also had a financial stake in Riverside rhythmic contemporary station KQIE. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved the sale on December 8, 2011; however, even after three extensions of time to consummate the sale, the transfer of ownership never took place.

Another proposed sale of KDAY and KDEY-FM was announced April 10, 2013, this time to RBC Communications, a group led by Chinese/Hong Kong broadcaster Phoenix Television and its editor-in-chief and current affairs anchor Anthony Yuen. By October, however, RBC had pulled out of the deal, marking the second failed attempt by Magic to divest the two stations.

On June 7, 2015, KDAY began airing Art Laboe's syndicated six-hour Sunday night urban oldies program The Art Laboe Connection. Previously, the show was broadcast on KHHT until the aforementioned flip of that station in February 2015.

KDEY-FM dropped its simulcast of KDAY a second time in February 2017, as the former flipped to an urban contemporary format targeting its local Inland Empire market as "Wild 93.5". Before the switch, owner Meruelo Media filed a special temporary authority with the FCC for KDEY-FM by reducing power to determine any possible co-channel interference issues. However, after just seven months, KDEY-FM would return to simulcasting with KDAY for a third time on October 30, 2017.

On May 9, 2017, Emmis Broadcasting sold KDAY competitor KPWR (Power 106) to Meruelo Group for $82.75 million; Meruelo began operating KPWR that July. As a result of the acquisition and the company's decision to retain KPWR's rhythmic contemporary format, airstaff and management, Meruelo announced that it would relocate the KDAY studios to Burbank alongside KPWR. Under Meruelo ownership, KDAY and KDEY-FM refocused their programming on classic hip hop and rhythmic throwbacks to avoid overlap.

History of the 93.5 FM frequency in Los Angeles
The station at 93.5 FM, licensed to Redondo Beach, California, signed on in 1961 as KAPP-FM and was owned by South Bay Broadcasting Company. The license was granted after the applications for KPOL-FM and KNX-FM were denied. Chuck Johnson and Lonnie Cook came to KAPP-FM from KTYM-FM (103.9 FM) in Inglewood. The frequency was shared as the signal's programming came from Redondo Beach in the daytime, and the pop, blues, doo wop, and jazz format being aired by Johnson and Cook (from Johnson's home) at night. It has been determined that their FM top 40 chart is the oldest one known to exist.

The station changed its callsign to KKOP with its sale to Southern California Associated Newspapers in 1965 and began playing mellow pop music. The transmitter moved to Torrance in the 1970s. In 1978, KKOP became KFOX-FM upon its sale to the former operators of KFOX at 1280 AM. Like its predecessor, KFOX-FM played country music. The format in the early 1980s was an adult contemporary hit music station. In 1981–1982, KFOX-FM employed Los Angeles' youngest disc jockey at the time, a 16-year-old student from Torrance High School, Brett Nordhoff, who later changed his on-air name to Kidd Kelly.

By 1983, KFOX-FM had evolved into a multi-ethnic, multilingual format such as Radio Rangarang (Persian), Radio Omid (Persian), and Radio Naeeri (Armenian). In the mid-1990s, this became "Radio Korea USA" with an all-Korean format. This continued until 1999, when the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel (ICFG) moved the KFSG call letters and Christian radio format to 93.5 FM. This switch was a condition of selling KXOL-FM (96.3 FM), acquired by Spanish Broadcasting System specifically for the purpose of relocating KFSG. In 2002, the lease arrangement with the ICFG ended and SBS switched KFSG to a Spanish-language outlet, first as KMJR ("La Mejor") and later KZAB as La Sabrosa.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: KDAY


text:
Josefin Lillhage

Josefin Lillhage (born 15 March 1980) is a former swimmer from Sweden, who won the bronze medal in the 200 m freestyle at the 2005 World Aquatics Championships in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. She competed in four Olympiads: in 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008.

Clubs

 * Simavdelningen 1902
 * Göteborg Sim (-1999)
 * Väsby SS (1999-)

title: Josefin Lillhage


text:
Will Christopher Baer

Will Christopher Baer is an American author of hardboiled fiction.

Novels

 * Kiss Me, Judas (1999)
 * Penny Dreadful (2000)
 * Hell's Half Acre (2004)
 * Godspeed (TBD)

Collections

 * Phineas Poe (2005), the trilogy consisting of Kiss Me, Judas, Penny Dreadful, and Hell's Half Acre

title: Will Christopher Baer


text:
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Ingy dust

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Radiant_ >|< 23:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Ingy dust
Someone who understands Romanian should check this, but this sure looks to me like an attack page disguised as a user account. User had contributed some short articles in Romanian, which have all since been speedy deleted. Googling for "ingy dust" turns up. Ilmari Karonen 12:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I still haven't found a translation but I note that the user page has only been edited by anon users. The user's Talk page was indeed edited by user:Ingy dust but that is the user's only edit to Wikipedia.  Since the user has not come back to edit at all, I'm willing to go out on a limb and agree that this can be deleted as a misuse of Wikipedia resources.  Rossami (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


text: Category:Swedish swimmers

title: Category:Swedish swimmers


text:
User:Morwen/tory

 * Conservative Party (UK)
 * parliamentary party
 * Leader of the Conservative Party (UK)
 * 1922 Committee
 * Conservative Central Office
 * National Conservative Coalition

Various area offices, consisting of constituency parties

 * 1) Berkshire
 * 2) Birmingham, Solihull and Coventry
 * 3) The Black Country
 * 4) Bristol and Gloucestershire
 * 5) Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire
 * 6) Cambridgeshire and Bedfordshire
 * 7) Cheshire and Wirral
 * 8) Cleveland and Durham
 * 9) Cumbria
 * 10) Derbyshire
 * 11) Devon and Cornwall
 * 12) Essex
 * 13) Greater Manchester East (Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Stockport)
 * 14) Greater Manchester West (Bolton, Manchester, Salford, Wigan)
 * 15) Hampshire and the Isle of Wight
 * 16) Herefordshire and Shropshire
 * 17) Hertfordshire
 * 18) Kent
 * 19) Lancashire
 * 20) Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland
 * 21) Lincolnshire
 * 22) London eastern
 * 23) London southern
 * 24) London western
 * 25) Merseyside
 * 26) Norfolk and Suffolk
 * 27) Nottinghamshire
 * 28) Somerset
 * 29) Staffordshire
 * 30) Surrey
 * 31) Sussex
 * 32) Tyne and Wear and Northumberland
 * 33) Wiltshire and Dorset
 * 34) Worcestershire and Warwickshire
 * 35) Yorkshire North and Yorkshire East
 * 36) Yorkshire South
 * 37) Yorkshire West
 * 38) Wales Mid and West
 * 39) Wales North
 * 40) Wales South Central
 * 41) Wales South East
 * 42) Wales South West

title: User:Morwen/tory


text:
Domus Academica

Domus Academica, colloquially called Domma, is a student housing complex in the center of Helsinki, Finland, owned by the Student Union of the University of Helsinki. It offers various services for students and also houses various Student Union organisations.

The complex is internationally known for the Domus chair originally designed by Ilmari Tapiovaara for the building.

title: Domus Academica


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Final Fantasy

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy keep by unanimous consent. Friday (talk) 16:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Final Fantasy
Completing nomination process started by User:69.193.44.60. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Speedy Keep and ban User:69.193.44.60 for the Bad faith nomination --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:05, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep, bad-faith nomination. — J I P | Talk 12:17, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per above. --GraemeL (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep as above.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Please do not complete the process for obvious bad faith. -R. fiend 15:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep bad faith --Mateusc 16:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.


text:
George Chinnery

George Chinnery (5 January 1774 – 30 May 1852) was an English painter who spent most of his life in Asia, especially India and southern China.

Early life
Chinnery was born in London, where he studied at the Royal Academy Schools. His father was an exponent of the Gurney system of shorthand; his elder brother William Chinnery owned what is now Gilwell Park in Epping Forest in Essex, before he was discovered to have committed large-scale fraud, and fled to Sweden. George Chinnery moved in 1796 to Ireland, where he enjoyed some success as an artist, and married Marianne (née Vigne) on 19 April 1799 in Dublin.

Career
Chinnery returned to London in 1801 without his wife and two infant children. In 1802 he sailed to Madras (Chennai) on the ship Gilwell. He established himself as a painter there and then in Calcutta (Kolkata), where he became the leading artist of the British community in India.

By 1813 Chinnery was a freemason, listed as a member of Calcutta's well-to-do masonic lodge Star in the East. This was one of three masonic lodges in that city which took part in the official welcome for Lord Moira (1754-1826), also a freemason, on his arrival there (1813) as the new Governor-General of India. Chinnery's masonic career is otherwise little documented, and its connection with his artistic output unexplored.

Some of his most famous paintings are of the Indian family of Colonel James Achilles Kirkpatrick British Resident to the Nizam of Hyderabad who had set up home, to some scandal among his fellow Europeans, with the Indo-Iranian great niece of the Nizam of Hyderabad's chief minister. He painted The Kirkpatrick Children presenting them " [with a] sympathy that is rare in portraiture of the period; the boy looking straight at the viewer with a self-conscious stance, hand on hip, while the girl looks uncomfortably at the floor." Mounting debt prompted a move in 1825 to southern China.

From 1825 until his death in 1852 Chinnery based himself in Macau, but until 1832 he made regular visits to Canton (now Guangzhou). He painted portraits of Chinese and Western merchants, visiting sea-captains, and their families resident in Macau. His work in oil paint was closely imitated by the Cantonese artist Lam Qua, who himself became a renowned portrait painter. Chinnery also painted landscapes (both in oils and in watercolours), and made numerous drawings of the people of Macau engaged in their daily activities.

In 1846 he made a six-month visit to Hong Kong, where he suffered from ill health but made detailed studies of the newly founded colony. He died in Macau on 30 May 1852 and is buried in the Old Protestant Cemetery there.

Works
Apart from their artistic value, his paintings are historically valuable as he was the only western painter resident in South China between the early and mid 19th century. He vividly depicted the life of ordinary people and the landscape of the Pearl River Delta at that period. Among the subjects of his portraits are the Scottish opium traders William Jardine and James Matheson as well as the diarist Harriet Low.

George Chinnery learnt the Gurney system shorthand from his father and grandfather (both writing-masters), and he used his own modified version of this shorthand for jotting quick notes on his pencil sketches.

Legacy
Substantial collections of Chinnery's drawings are to be found in London in the Victoria and Albert Museum and the British Museum; and in Salem, Mass., at the Peabody Essex Museum. Other notable groups are held in Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery, UK; the Hong Kong Museum of Art; the Macau Museum; and the Macau Museum of Art. The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation can claim to have the outstanding corporate collection of Chinnery's works. Loan exhibitions of his pictures have been held recently in Centro Cultural de Belém, Lisbon (1995); Metropolitan Teien Art Museum, Tokyo (1996); Hong Kong Museum of History, Hong Kong (2005); and Macau Museum (2010).

Chinnery was the basis for the artist Aristotle Quance in the James Clavell novel Tai-Pan.

title: George Chinnery


text:
Talk:Rydberg constant

RH = 2.179 X 10^-18 J = 1.10 x 10^7 m^-1
My love khushbu Why in the world does this article only include the Rydberg constant expressed in the form 1.10 x 10^7 m^-1??? This is easily understood by intermediate chemistry students as the Rydberg cosntant after it is divided by the speed of light and Planck's constant, but it doesn't at all explain the original ACTUAL constant (2.179 x -18 J) and how it relates to ΔE=hν=hc/γ. Why would that not be included anywhere in an article that is to be seen by people who have never dealt with Rydberg before? If I come back in around 6 months and the article looks the same I guess I'll add a whole new section explaining this, unless someone else would rather go ahead. 2605:6000:FE40:A400:38CD:1C6A:D1E7:BF4F (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)Devin 7/4/2014

A suggestion about the articles
I strongly suggest that the articles on the Rydberg Constant and the Rydberg Formula be merged into one article. These two articles overlap a lot, and the reason is that you can do one derivation in quantum mechanics, and out of that pops both the Rydberg constant and the Rydberg formula. voila! Then, all you have to say is that in the mid-1880s, Dr. Rydberg worked out the whole formula experimentally and empirically -- well-before quantum mechanics had been developed. Rydberg had a value for his constant, but he had no idea where thatn constant came from. He didn't know that it was a simple (mathematically) function of the charge on the electron, the mass of an electron, the permitivity of free space, and the speed of light - plus another constant that he had no idea about because it wasn't discovered until 1900 or a little later: Planck's Constant. 98.67.111.148 (talk) 06:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrong units
The given formula for the Rydberg constant R_\infty would lead to a dimension of mass times velocity, whicjh is obviously not an inverse length. DumbBoy 12:09, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

The formula is correct, see eg http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/RydbergConstant.html I don't like the line about being well-determined due to containing five other constants. This needs clarifying (if it's even right), it seems to me that the errors from all the other measurements add, making the Rydberg by far the most errored.

163.1.146.226 19:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The above user refers to a paragraph that I'm now removing:

 * As the formula for the Rydberg constant contains no less than five other physical constants, namely the elementary charge $$e \ $$, the electron rest mass $$m_e \ $$, the permittivity of vacuum $$\epsilon_0 \ $$, reduced Planck's constant $$ \hbar \ $$, and the speed of light in vacuum $$c \ $$, it is one of the most well-determined physical constants. Measuring the Rydberg constant confirms the proportions of the values of the other five constants.

Melchoir 16:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think user 163.1.146.226 may not have understood that in high-precision measurement of fundamental constants, one normally determines combinations of constants from a single experiment. When one then wants to tease out a single constant, e.g., h, or e, or the mass of the electron, it typically becomes necessary to combine results of several experiments, so that it may very well be true that individual constants are more poorly determined that their combinations. The statement in the article that it tests QED is totally wrong, and I'm removing it. QED doesn't predict the value of, e.g., the electromagnetic coupling constant or the mass of the electron. No measurement of the Rydberg constant could ever, even in theory, disprove QED.--76.93.42.50 (talk) 03:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Info from former page "Rydberg"
"The Rydberg is a unit of energy defined in terms of the ground state energy of the Hydrogen atom (see Rydberg formula). $$E=\frac{-m_e e^4}{2\hbar^2}\frac{Z^2}{n^2}$$ The Rydberg is abbreviated Ry. $$1 Ry = \frac{-m_e e^4}{2\hbar^2} = 13.6 eV $$"

I don't know how correct this info is, so i'm putting it here for now. Fresheneesz 23:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Comments
I am quite used to seeing the formula expressed as $$\frac{1}{\lambda} = R(\frac{1}{n_f^2} - \frac{1}{n_i^2})$$. It would be more intuitive if the formula were expressed this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.91.126.99 (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not the Wiki article for the formula, but the one for the constant. There is another wiki article on Rydberg formula where the equation you mention is given sooner. Take a look at that Wiki article and see what you think. S  B Harris 04:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting
I did some rewriting. The lead contained a lot of errors, and was poorly written. The body of the article duplicated a lot of material from the lead, and also from Bohr model.--76.93.42.50 (talk) 03:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Derivation section
User Razorflame reverted my edit in which I took out the derivation of the Bohr model, which IMO was a pointless duplication of material at Bohr model. I've invited Razorflame to talk about this here.--76.93.42.50 (talk) 03:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That is fine. I realized my mistake, and I immediately self-reverted my reversion that I made to this article.  If I made a mistake, feel free to ask me again on my talk page. Cheers, Razorflame 04:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool -- I'm glad we were able to work it out :-) --76.93.42.50 (talk) 04:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Rydberg constant for hydrogen?
In the section on the derivation of the Rydberg constant, it states "We have therefore found the Rydberg constant for hydrogen to be"

 * $$ R_H = \frac{ m_e e^4}{8 \epsilon_0^2 h^3 c} $$

However, earlier in the article, R∞ is used to designate this quantity, where the infinity sign shows that the mass of the nucleus is assumed to be infinite. However, if the nucleus is assumed to be infinite, how can the constant be said to be specifically "for hydrogen"? Moreover, Eric Weisstein's World of Physics has the reduced mass of one proton and one electron in their formula for RH, $$ \frac{ m_e m_p}{m_e + m_p} $$ Thus, it seems to me that the symbol should be changed to R with an infinity sign and "for hydrogen" changed to "for an atom with one electron and a nucleus with infinite mass." Or, alternately, the reduced mass of hydrogen could be substituted for the mass of an electron. Let me know if I have misunderstood anything here. WilliamJenkins09 (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 * The "assumption that the mass of the atomic nucleus is infinite compared to the mass" does NOT say that the mass of the atomic nucleus is infinite!
 * Somebody needs to learn something about the mathematics of approximations. What this DOES say is the the ratio (mass of the nucleus)/(mass of the electron) is so damn large that we are justified in treating this ratio as infinite. For hydrogen, given that the mass of a proton is ever-so-much-higher than the mass of an electon, then we are safe to approximate this ratio by infinity.
 * Then, in the physical sciences, the next question to ask is, "What if that ratio is not large enough to treat it as infinite? I can assure you that this usually leads to a lot more complicated math - but sometimes to some interesting results.   DAW - M.S. in electrical engineering and M.A. in mathematics, and who had taken approximations up to his gills!

98.67.111.148 (talk) 06:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You are correct! I would keep R∞ and say "for an atom with one electron and one nuclear charge, but a nucleus of infinite mass". The reason for this is that R∞is usually this R constant which is given in texts. Then add "For the case of hydrogen-1 (protium), the reduced mass $$ \frac{ m_e m_p}{m_e + m_p} $$ must be substituted for $$m_e$$"-- or something like that. Perhaps adding how much this changes the "constant." Historically, a lot of people didn't believe Bohr's equation, and somebody or other (Rutherford, I think) noted that its prediction of the spectrum for He(+1) was just a little bit off (the He lines were not exactly 1/4 the H frequencies). Bohr pointed out that they should not be 1/4, but that factor multiplied by the ratios of the reduced masses for H-1 and He-4, and that got the ratio exactly. This made an instant believer out of Rutherford. Later, much the same thing was found to apply to the spectrum of deuterium. S  B Harris 23:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

 * SBHarris, thanks for your response. I made some changes to the derivation section to indicate that the equation is strictly true only for the imaginary system with an infinitely massive nucleus. I was going to add some remarks about adjusting for hydrogen with its finite mass, but then I noticed that the section "Value of the Rydberg constant" has an equation for atoms with nuclei of finite mass, so then I had second thoughts. I'm not sure whether this point is even worth bringing up, but I realized that the specification of a +1 nuclear charge is necessary in the equations for energy, but not in the final equation for the Rydberg constant (because there is a Z2 term right next to R in the Rydberg formula, right?) I'm not going to worry about this issue right now, though. If I got anything wrong or left something out, feel free to make the necessary corrections. WilliamJenkins09 (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Circle reference?
In this article it says that the Rydberg constant can be calculated from fundamental constants using quantum mechanics. The equation to be used is

 * $$R_\infty = \frac{m_e e^4}{8 \varepsilon_0^2 h^3 c} = 1.097\;373\;156\;852\;5\;(73) \times 10^7 \ \mathrm{m}^{-1},$$

where me is the rest mass of the electron. However, in the article electron rest mass, it says that the rest mass of the electron is calculated from the definition of the Rydberg constant, namely

 * $$R_{\infty} = \frac{m_{\rm e}c\alpha^2}{2h} \Rightarrow m_{\rm e} = \frac{2R_{\infty}h}{c\alpha^2}\,.$$

So, the question is, which constant is calculated from the other one and which is not? The article says that, as of 2010, the Rydberg constant is the most accurately measured fundamental physical constant. But if it is calculated from the electron rest mass, wouldn't it be necessary that the electron rest mass is even more accurately measured? --Kri (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

 * I edited the article to make it clearer: $$R_\infty$$ is known by measuring atomic spectral lines. It is not obtained by multiplying e and m_e and h etc. (OK, well, it involves more than just directly measuring atomic spectral lines...there are also complicated theoretical calculations to correct for finite nuclear mass and various other effects.) --Steve (talk) 04:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Steve - your amendment is still not satisfactory. I came to the main article wanting to know what R is - i.e. how it is defined, and I found the article ambiguous. The article starts off saying that R is the limit of the H spectrum, but then goes on to define it (apparently) in terms of fundamental constants, but with the warning that this is only an approximation based on a nucleus with infinite mass relative to the mass of an electron. Then, in the section on Measurements we are back to spectra again, with yet another putative definition - this time of much greater complexity. Finally, in the 2nd paragraph of this section there is an statement that the constant is defined by a spectrum which does not exist in reality - to me a mind-boggling concept. This particular 'definition' seems to be an error, and I have substituted '..describes..' for '..is defined by...', which seems to make more sense, albeit with the logical meaning reversed. But we are still left with 2 or 3 possible definitions. It would help readers like me if a clear definition of what this constant is (in terms of how its value is found) were put right at the top of the page, and if the various other meanings of the term are put forward as explanations rather than as alternative definitions. I have left this site with a still unclear idea of what R actually is, which seems unsatisfactory - I must look elsewhere for what I want.

 * The most pedantic and logical (but not pedagogical) approach would be to say that $$R_\infty = m_e e^4/(8 \varepsilon_0^2 h^3 c)$$ by definition, and it just coincidentally happens to describe (in a good approximation) the spectrum of hydrogen. On the other hand, the most pedagogical approach -- the approach taken by intro-physics books and courses -- is to forget about fine structure and say (untruthfully) that the Rydberg formula is exact, and $$R_\infty$$ is defined in terms of the spectrum of hydrogen, and then it was the brilliance of Bohr to discover that $$R_\infty$$ just happens coincidentally to be a simple function of the electron mass etc. For this article, I don't know what the best approach is, i.e. how to keep things pedagogical and simple without saying anything inaccurate. I'm sure it can be done...maybe if I have more time later... --Steve (talk) 12:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I had a go re-editing the intro and first three sections. Does it help? --Steve (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Rydberg constant