Humanities desk
< August 14	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 16 >

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

August 15

Who are the closest family members to become Presidents of the USA?

I was watching Jeb Bush on TV. I realized that if he won the election, the country will have had a father (Bush Senior), a son (Bush Junior), and another son/brother (Jeb Bush) as US President. Which made me think of a question. In the nation's history, what is the largest number of "close family members" who held the job as US President? Would the Bush family hold the record at three, if Jeb Bush wins? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The closest non-Bush family members to be president were John Adams and John Quincy Adams (father-son) and William Henry Harrison and Benjamin Harrison (grandfather-grandson). The two Roosevelts (Teddy and Franklin) were fifth cousins, (the closest ancestor to both was Nicholas Roosevelt (1658–1742), the great-great-great-great-grandfather of both) and so other than the coincident of name, were not that closely related. I know of no other presidents who were closer blood relations than those. I'm not sure, but I seem to remember that many presidents are distantly related, by marriage, to George Washington though his wife Martha Washington (George and Martha had no children, but Martha's family, the Custis family, was very prolific in marrying into many prominent early American aristocratic families), or his ancestors Augustine Warner, Jr. and Augustine Washington both of whom had large, well connected families. (I only know this because my children (through my wife) are decedended from both the Custis and Warner families. I, unfortunately, am descended from Quebecois pig farmers and fur trappers). Many U.S. presidents can claim descent or distant relation to either the Custis, Warner, or Washington families, making them distant cousins of George Washington, up to and including the current president Barack Obama, see here that explains how almost every U.S. president can trace lineage, either through blood or marriage, to George Washington. Obama, according to that article, is Washingtons 9th cousin, 6 times removed. Wikipedia itself has an article titled List of U.S. presidential relatives which also may help you with your research. But basically, aside from the Bushes (George W. and George H.W.), the Adamses (John and John Quincy) and the Harrisons (William Henry and Benjamin), there are no close relatives that have been President. If Jeb were also to become president, he would be both the first brother of a president to become president, and would make the Bush family the first such family with 3 such close relatives to be President. --Jayron 32 07:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we introduce links through marriage, the Roosevelts get much closer because Eleanor was Teddy's niece. Would marriage links bring any other pairs much closer? (Of course, marriage *might* bring a certain future link **MUCH** closer...)188.247.76.211 (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Both Bush sons are related to Franklin Pierce through their mother. George W. even resembles Pierce to some extent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In that case, Nixon and Eisenhower were in-laws of a sort, as David Eisenhower (President Eisenhower's grandson) married Julie Nixon (Richard Nixon's daughter). --Jayron 32 13:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Longest term served as a US President or Vice President or both combined

First question: Is a US President allowed only two terms in succession only? Or can he serve two terms, leave office, and then return a few years later for another term (or terms)? In other words, if they are not consecutive, is he allowed more than two terms? Is that a "settled" question or an open question? Second question: Same as above, but for Vice President. Third question: What is the longest amount of time that an individual can serve as both President and Vice President? Is it 8 years plus 8 years = 16 years? Or am I missing something? Fourth and final question: Which individual held the posts of President/Vice President for the greatest amount of time? Is it Bush Senior, with 12 years? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the predominant understanding of the Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution, the limit for serving as President is 10 years less one day. A president cannot serve more than 2 terms, rounded correctly. If a president serves less than half of a term (two years less a day) of a term to which another President is elected, they may stand for election 2 more times. If a President serves more than half of such a term, they may only stand for election one more time. The United States presidential election, 1968 is informative here. While Lyndon Baines Johnson, the sitting president, chose not to run for another term, he could have, since he had served less than half of JFK's term, then was elected to his own term in 1964; he was allowed by law to run for another 4 year term. To your other questions or implied questions, AFAIK, there is no term limit for Vice President, so a person could serve any amount of time as Veep, both before and after serving as President. The 22nd Amendment only sets term limits for the President. As far as the person who has been President for the longest time, it is Franklin Delano Roosevelt, he served more than 12 years as President, though none as VP. I know of no one who served more than 2 full terms as VP, and no one except FDR served more than 2 full terms as president. AFAIK, Richard Nixon is the only person other than FDR to have been elected 4 times (twice as Vice President and twice as President), Nixon served a bit over 5 1/2 years as President and a full 8 years as VP, those 13 1/2 years would be the longest of any such person. --Jayron 32 07:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From memory of the same Article: "No person ineligible to the office of President shall be Vice President." So a past two-term President cannot be future VP. —Tamfang (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There is an ambiguity here, though. The 22nd Amendment doesn't say (at least directly) that someone who has served two terms is "ineligible to the office of President", but only that he cannot be elected president. Now, at least etymologically, "eligible" and "elect" come from the same root, and so you could argue that "ineligible" actually means "cannot be elected", but this is not the obvious reading in today's English. (Note that there is almost certainly no constitutional bar to a former two-term president becoming Speaker of the House, and I don't see anything in the Presidential Succession Act of 1947 that would rule him out either, so he is arguably "eligible" (in the ordinary-English sense of the word) to be at least Acting President.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Briefly: the relevant clause says nothing about consecutive terms. —Tamfang (talk) 08:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS, Joseph A. Spadaro, there's no term limit on your service as VP. As long as you're eligible for election in the first place, you could legally serve for decades in the position, although of course it wouldn't be politically practical. One occupant of the position having described it as being "not worth a bucket of warm piss", the drafters of the Twenty-second Amendment apparently didn't see any need to term-limit it; the position has no constitutional responsibilities aside from tiebreaking in the Senate, and even nowadays, with the vastly expanded power of the federal government, the vice-president still is basically just a close advisor to the President and our replacement head of state, performing ceremonial roles as the Queen of the UK and the President of Israel do. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are members of Congress exempt from criminal laws?

I just read the following statement: "Members of both Houses have certain privileges, based on those enjoyed by the members of the British Parliament. Members attending, going to or returning from either House are privileged from arrest, except for treason, felony or breach of the peace." It is in this Wikipedia article: Article One of the United States Constitution. What would be the rationale/purpose of such a policy? Why would they put something like that in place? It seems odd. If a member of Congress committed an assault, rape, or murder, they cannot be arrested. But, for breach of peace, they can? Huh? What's going on? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if they wanted to avoid arrest indefinitely, can't they simply assert (to the arresting officer) "Oh, I am on my way to Congress now"? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:24, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The argument in favour of parliamentary immunity is that presidents or the police might otherwise try to bully Congress members by threatening to arrest them on trumped-up charges. To make sure that individual Congress members don't get away with murder (at least not in the form you mention), Congress has its own "police" of sorts: See "Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives" and "Sergeant at Arms of the United States Senate" Gabbe (talk) 07:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The law is expressly to prevent the use of vexatious litigation to influence congressional votes. Also, part of your premise is wrong, Congressmen can be arrested for assault, rape, or murder, as the Constitution allows for arrest for treason, felony, or breach of peace. In nearly all jurisdictions, assault, rape, and murder are all felonies, and would certainly be considered "breach of the peace". The law exists in the Constitution for using arrest, or the threat of arrest, from influencing the actions of Congressmen, not to grant Congressmen immunity from serious crimes. See here and here also. I'm also scouring the Federalist Papers for some original intent on the clause you cite (Article I, section 6), since the Federalist Papers usually have detailed rationale for almost every clause in the Constitution, though I can't find anything directly. Still, most legal scholars seem to agree that the clause is not a blanket immunity against committing crimes, but rather a protection for Congressmen against the use of vexatious litigation to stifle them. --Jayron 32 07:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. I missed the word "felony". Don't know how I missed that. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:06, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Diplomatic immunity is the sort to have, if you'd rather get away with major crimes. InedibleHulk (talk) 15:06, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

President and Prime Minister

What's the difference between a president and a prime minister?

Desklin (talk) 09:03, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A president is typically the head of state of a country, while a prime minister is not. A president has the ability to grant pardons, often has special executive powers and represents his/her country internationally. In contrast, a prime minister is formally a servant or agent of the state, that's what the word minister means. He or she may have great political power, but is still subject to the head of state, whether it be a president, king, emperor, grand duke or something else. - Lindert (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A president is the head of state of a republic (as opposed to a monarchy). A prime minister is the head of government of a country, regardless of whether that country is a monarchy or a republic. In some countries (notably the United States) the president is simultaneously head of state and head of government. Gabbe (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Officially, at least. In any case, still bound to serve the more mundane powers that be, like advisors, voters, strange dreams, term limits, bribery, gravity, terrorists, creditors, lobbyists, death, taxes, Rupert Murdoch, natural disasters, lawyers, First Ladies, First Children, First Pets and general fears and desires about all of the above.

Typically, anyway. A post like President of Belarus has far more wiggle room. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:50, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents are directly elected by the public (or occosionally via an Electoral College, such as in the USA or Germany). Prime Ministers are, loosely speaking, elected by the lawmakers in the legislature.31.80.204.172 (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly more precisely, each party chooses a leader before they're in the legislature. After that, it's up to the ridings to choose which party gets to make their leader the Prime Minister. In presidential systems, blue lawmakers can significantly outnumber red ones, under a red head of government. Can be a problem, especially when the parties have to tow different party lines. Prime Ministers can more safely assume they'll have at least 51% percent support from their House. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Presidents are directly elected by the public (or occosionally via an Electoral College, such as in the USA or Germany)." -- Just Not True. In a majority of parliamentary republics, the President is elected by the Parliament. See the table in the Parliamentary republic article. jnestorius^(talk) 10:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The President is the head of state of a country, while the Prime Minister is the head of government of a country. Presidents are the official leader of their nation, while Prime Ministers are officially the chief advisor to their heads of state. In many countries (in a constitutional monarchy or those with a weak or Semi-presidential system or Parliamentary republic) the head of state has either a small or no role in the operation of the government, being mainly a figurehead, serving as a diplomat or cultural or traditional focus, but having little to no power to actually enact or enforce laws. In those cases, the Prime Minister position has evolved to become more powerful than either the Monarch or the President, but is still a distinct role apart from the President. Some people will even use the term Premier to indicate a leader who plays a role like a Prime Minister in countries without any President or Monarch. See, for example, Premier of the Soviet Union, a country that had no President, which changed the title in English to "Prime Minister" for the short period in the early 1990s when Mikhail Gorbachev took on the new title as "President of the Soviet Union". However, some people use Premier as interchangeable with Prime Minister, so that usage isn't universal. --Jayron 32 14:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, all the Canadian Prime Minister can do to enact a law is "humbly request" royal assent, if it pleases Her Excellency. If it doesn't, that's a wrap. In practice, of course, everything always pleases Her Excellency, possibly because he asks nicely, every single time. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True; many things which descend from British politics (the Westminster system) are based on practical politics, not on written regulations and laws. On paper, the way Commonwealth nations operate looks much different from how they work; much of the system is supported by legal fictions that pay homage to history and tradition, while the actual operation of a modern nation works very differently. --Jayron 32 14:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formally, the Prime Minister is (typically) appointed by the head of state. In practice, if the President or King appoints someone other than the head of the majority party, a majority of the legislature will usually declare that it has "no confidence" in the resulting Cabinet, and the King or President will have to try again. —Tamfang (talk) 09:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no majority party (and no majority coalition organizes itself), the HoS may play a more active part, picking someone and saying "Here, see if you can put together a Cabinet that can pass a confidence vote." —Tamfang (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think all of the above answers are a bit problematic, in assuming that there is a single notion of "president" or "prime minister" that applies internationally. There really isn't. You have to deal with things country-by-country.

The United States, for example, does not have in its constitution any notion of "head of state" or "head of government". The "head of state" bit has mostly to do with diplomatic protocol, so for most purposes it's fairly meaningless. The extent to which the US president is "head of government" is also debatable; he has, for example, no official legislative role outside of the veto.

What we can say generally is that most presidents fall into one of two broad models. One model is mostly a figurehead, a republican replacement for the sovereign in a constitutional monarchy. Examples include the President of Italy. These presidents are typically expected to abstain from political questions, though they may (as in the Italian case) have some residual powers, such as vetoing legislation that they consider unconstitutional (but they are not supposed to do it simply because they disagree with it as policy).

The other model is the strong president, the one who is part of the political fray, as in the United States, France, Russia, to some extent Germany. In some cases these may coexist with, and sometimes conflict with, a prime minister. --Trovatore (talk) 23:11, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course, every country is to an extent a sui generis creation. Still, as humans, it is possible to make some broad categorizations based on similarities. Many countries, for example, have adopted some form of the Westminster system, whether they are Commonwealth countries (like the UK or Australia or New Zealand) or others which have modeled themselves after it (Such as the Israeli system of government, with an elected, but mostly ceremonial President takes the place of the monarch). A minister is an advisor or servant, so the Prime Minister is the one who is the "Top advisor", literally. The evolution of Prime Minister in most places is such that the Prime Minister is the actual power in the government, and not the official "Head of State". But there was a time when the Prime Minister was really an advisor, and actually required the approval of the monarch to act (as opposed to now, where approval, or royal assent, is automatic and expected to the point of being a legal fiction). --Jayron 32 16:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

King and Emperor

What's the difference between a king and an emperor? What's the difference between a kingdom and an empire?

Desklin (talk) 09:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction used to be that a king ruled over a single country (a kingdom), whereas an emperor ruled over several countries (an empire). This distinction has since been lost, and there have been kings ruling over several countries as well as emperors ruling only one country. Gabbe (talk) 09:42, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it depends on how megalo you like your mania. For example, there were emperors of Brazil and one of Mexico. Then there are the kings and occasional queens of England and other lands upon which the sun never sets, although Victoria was also Empress of India. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a specific legal distinction in medieval western Europe, where there was only one Emperor, the Holy Roman Emperor - theoretically a successor of the original Roman emperor - who had to be crowned by the pope. If he hadn't been crowned by the pope, he was only a king (King of the Germans or King of the Romans. The other kings of Europe couldn't be emperors even if they did rule more than one country, although the kings of Spain sometimes attempted to call themselves emperors. This all broke down when the HRE was dissolved in 1803, and the Austrian Empire and the First French Empire popped up. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is also possible to be both a king and an emperor; the King of Prussia was (from 1871 to 1918) also the Emperor of Germany and the Monarch of the United Kingdom was (from 1876 to 1948) also the Emperor or Empress of India. Alansplodge (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that was from the period AFTER the title of Emperor broke down from it's original meaning. In Europe prior to the Age of Enlightenment, a ruler (even one who ruled multiple nations at once) could only claim the title of Emperor through the principle of translatio imperii and thus descent from the original emperor, the Roman Emperor. Historically, that meant that there could be at any one time only two real Emperors, after the Partition of the Roman Empire into Eastern and Western halves after 392. In Europe, this plays out where the Western Emperor evolved (with many gaps in history and interesting twists) to the Holy Roman Emperor, and in the east first to the Byzantine Emperor (who always used the title "Roman Emperor" for themselves, the word "Byzantine" is a modern creation and was unknown at the time) and after that Empire fell to the Turks, to the Russian Emperor, who took the title "Tsar" (Caesar) to represent Russia's claim to the title of Third Rome, and later Emperor of All Russia. Even some later Emperors took their title from those states, for example the position of Emperor of Austria arises from the Habsburg family who adopted the title after the fall of the Holy Roman Empire in the early 19th century. Napoleon took the title of French Emperor after he abolished the Holy Roman Empire, by Right of Conquest, and the German Empire was established only AFTER they overthrew Napoleon III's Second French Empire for the same reason. There are actually very few Emperors who didn't claim some form of translatio imperii back to Rome, such as the Emperor of Brazil or the Emperor of Mexico, but these titles come late enough that the actual meaning of Emperor had evolved to where it no longer meant "Roman Emperor". Still, in summation, for most of history there was only one claim to the title of Emperor, regardless of how many nations one ruled, and that was those who claimed the title of Roman Emperor. --Jayron 32 14:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also King-Emperor. The God Emperor was more accurately a "heavenly sovereign", but basically a sacred king, like the divine right of kings was basically the Mandate of Heaven. Seventy years after the Humanity Declaration, the son is human enough to finally express remorse for the sins of his holy father's Imperial cultists. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now for me to grumble about Eurocentrism. Granted, there's the issue of identifying English-language titles with titles in other languages and cultures. In Imperial Chinese thought, the theory was that the Emperor had the Mandate of Heaven, and was sovereign of "all under Heaven". Other rulers were considered subordinate to the Emperor, deriving their authority from him. Historiographically, Qin Shi Huang, whose armies united all of China proper under his rule, is generally considered the first Emperor of China. Various titles used in other states in the Sinosphere also get translated as "Emperor". Many of these titles are patterned after the Chinese use, often as a political statement that the ruler was equal in stature to the Chinese emperor. The English title "Emperor" is applied to a variety of other non-European rulers, including the fairly well-known examples of the Aztec and Inca rulers. Now of course, none of these states used English as a primary language (or for that matter any language that uses an equivalent title derived from the Latin imperator), so the choice of whether to call a ruler an "emperor" or a "king" is always going to be somewhat subjective. The logic scholars generally follow seems to be that polities that were large, multi-ethnic, and expanded in part by conquest qualify as "empires", making their rulers emperors. Additionally, as mentioned above, they seem to include titles used in the Sinosphere that imply equality with the Chinese Emperor, such as the Japanese tennō, which literally means "heavenly sovereign" (compare "Son of Heaven", one title used by Chinese emperors). --108.38.204.15 (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese historiography is fascinating in-and-of itself, the Chinese concept of "Mandate of Heaven" is a pretty good analogue of "translatio imperii". The thing the Mandate of Heaven does for Chinese historiography, presenting Chinese history as a two millennia unbroken line of singular rule of emperors from Qin Shi Huang to Puyi is quite an interesting contrast to the realities of Chinese history, experiencing many centuries of fragmented rule and anarchy, foreign domination by Mongols and Manchus, etc, all of which gets swept under the rug by the ex-post-facto nature of the Mandate of Heaven. China wasn't conquered by foreign powers, the Mandate of Heaven passes to the conquerors. China is not politically fragmented, it suffers from disobedient subjects who don't recognize the Mandate of Heaven. Rebels who seize power did not do so illegitimately, the Mandate of Heaven passed to them, etc. It is an interesting lens to see history through, and entirely unlike Western historiography. --Jayron 32 05:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to what's been said above, there are also interesting answers here: http://english.stackexchange.com/q/63039/124562 Gabbe (talk) 08:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to what was said earlier, consider the situation of Empress Irene and Charlemagne. There having been no Western emperor for several centuries, before which time the 2+ emperors were always mutually recognising (aside from periodic conflicts), problems arose in Constantinople when imperial officials learnt that a random Germanic king had decided that he was the Roman Emperor. More problems arose when the Empress began positive negotiations with said Germanic king and even talked of marrying him, and these problems were only really resolved when she got overthrown in a palace coup. Although interrupted by conflicts with the Arabs and the Bulgars (major at points; one emperor even got his skull turned into a drinking goblet), the diplomatic dispute over the imperial title continued until a later emperor recognised the upstart in 812 in order to get back a piece of territory that said Germanic king had conquered. Finally, see the "New Western lineage" section of Roman emperor, which addresses the upstart-versus-actual-emperor conflict caused by Charlemagne. Nyttend (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could summarise the situations both in and around Europe and in and around China as: "Once, there was a state that was massively more powerful than all its neighbours, the ruler of which used a special title to indicate that he and his country were much more important than all the neighbouring ones. Later, other states and monarchs used the same title (or translations of it) to indicate either that they were the legitimate successor to the original, or that they were comparably impressive". Iapetus (talk) 14:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on my previous point (and include some actal links), the title a ruler chooses to use (or how a foreign title is translated) is very much a political act. To give yourself the same title as a foreign or historical ruler, or to translate a foreign title as your own, is to say you are of equivilent rank. Conversely, to chose a different title or translation is to say your rule is qualatively different. A few examples:

The title "King" itself is of Germanic origin, and is etymologically related to "kin", emphasising the fact that the king came from a particular royal lineage.
The early Roman monarchs used the title "Rex" (which is usually translated as and seen as equivilent to the English "King", and has equivilents in many Indo-European languages, e.g. Ric, Rix, Rig, Raja). The Romans eventually overthrew their kings, and replaced them with a republic. The idea and title of "king" was so unpopular with the Romans that when they later became a monarchy again their rulers used the title "Imperator" ("commander") and pretended they were still a republic.
When Odoacer conquered Rome and overthrew the last of the Western Emperors, he took the title "King of Italy", as a way of assuring the Eastern Emperor that he would submit to his overlordship rather than setting himself up as an equal and rival emperor.
In contrast, various later monarchs took titles derived from "Imperator" (or alternatively, named their realm after Rome) to indicate that they and their realm was the rightful successor of the Roman Empire and the inheritor of its authority and glory.
Some of the early Viking rulers of Russia started using the Turkic title "Khagan", presumably to claim equivilence in status to the dominant power in the region.
Various monarchs used titles derived from the name of a previous monarch who was deemed to be particularly noteworthy, e.g. Caesar/Czar/Tsar/Kaisar.
The rulers of ancient China used the title "Wang", which is usually translated as "king". When the king of Qin conquered the rest of China, he took the title "Huangdi", which was previously only used by several mythical or divine rulers and is translated as "Emperor". (The full name/title he used was "Qin Shi Huang", meaning "First Emperor of China")
Sometimes title of "king" or "emperor" is only usable by someone of a particular lineage. In that case, the de-facto ruler my keep a puppet emperor around and use a lesser title for himself. For example, the Shogun in Japan, or Timur, who used the title "Amir" ("general") as only direct descendents of Ghengis Khan were allowed to use the "Khan" ("Emperor") title.
According to the article Shah, the title of the Persian rulers was traditionally translated in the West as "King", but was later treated as "Emperor" for political reasons (sucking up to the Persians in order to get help against the Turks). Iapetus (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ave Iapetus! Speaking of translating from Latin, it's equi-valent (as in valency, etc), not equi-vilent (as in ... er, nothing). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Defense of Democracies

Can people please keep an eye on said article? I interned there in summer 2007 and that article was edited from work with neocon additions (you can probably see the IPs that edited that summer from the history). I also moved from the politics to "business development" and, having signed a non-disclosure agreement, know full well who the majority of donors were, including by far and away the biggest donor. (Sheldon Adelson)120.62.11.149 (talk) 11:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really the right place for this kind of request: it might be a better bet to repost at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Alansplodge (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks.120.62.0.22 (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to stop agenda accounts on Islam related articles

I want to report some agenda accounts which are permanently controlling and like owning the pages of Islam related articles. Most of them are putting minor views inside articles and presenting bad pictures of heir opposing movements. English speaking editors who are not Muslims will find hard to discover their agenda but it has been seen by me in the history section of various articles that indeed a group is here which has control over Islam related articles. I can provide some references if asked. Keeping the Wikipedia neutral is indeed very necessary in order to maintain its reputation. ScholarM (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really the right page to address your concerns... I suggest you re-post the above at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. Blueboar (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

31.205.63.240 (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Finsbury Sculpture - Why?! (re: sculptor Stephen Cox, Faceted Column)

Does anyone know the meaning behind the Faceted Column sculpture created by Stephen Cox? And why does the rough side have a block under it? It's located on the corner of finsbury and chiswell st. in London.

Thank you so much!!

31.205.63.240 (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Stephen Cox (sculptor) for our article on the artist (and a photo of the column). This is his page on the Adrian Sassoon gallery website. I've not been able to find anything specifically about the column as yet. Tevildo (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are referring to the sculpture illustrated? If so, it appears to be an example of abstract art, and as such any meaning attached to it is going to be open to interpretation and reinterpretation. Possibly Cox had some specific meaning or intent behind it, but I think that one can safely assume that he will be aware that others may see it differently, and that there is no simple 'meaning' for a complex work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the faceted base, the explanation for this is fairly prosaic; virtually all recently-installed public sculptures in urban environments have either a faceted plinth, or a plinth small enough that the sculpture overhangs it, to discourage people from using the bases as impromptu benches, and to discourage children from climbing on it. In at least one well-publicised case, the purchase of Henry Moore's Large Spindle Piece to go outside King's Cross Station in 2014, the sculpture itself was specifically chosen because it was felt the shape would discourage people from sitting/climbing. ‑ iridescent 17:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak to the intent, but functionally, only wonderful art makes people wonder. About it, about them and (maybe most importantly) about the artist. And if people zoning down yet another straight line sidewalk, with squares on every plane, happen to stop and wonder in a certain spot, they're that much more likely to wonder about what's behind that spot, too. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This says he was inspired (to something else) by Michelangelo's quote about art to be discovered in stone. Maybe this sculpure isn't finished yet. Just "living" there, becoming a "transitional object" as passersby wonder on it, like the statement link in the first answer says about bowls and altars. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The block underneath the lopsided part is almost certainly just to bear the weight evenly, but I'm no engineer or even good at math, so can't be too sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it is, it's rather more attractive than the "sculpture" a short walk away at Liverpool Street Station, consisting of five massive rusty steel slabs leaning against each other (apparently by an American called Richard Serra) whose only use seems to be as an emergency urinal after the pubs have closed. Philistine? Moi? Alansplodge (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Squares are for squares, man! Still a fine transitional object, though. Leonardo da Vinci never created a urinal for the common man, and the people who do usually don't get Wikipedia articles. There's only so many times liberal society can piss in the same boring dish, on the same boring "cake", and pull the old steel knob before it erodes, leaving future generations to deal with the mess. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wheelie Bin Urinal Bus stop (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. It says that 'people' can urinate into it. I suspect that some people will find it easier than others. Of course the relationship between street art and urination woks both ways - with the pissoir of continental Europe being the prime example. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Published critical art reviews of the specific sculpture are what is needed, not speculations of random WP RefDesk editors. To the sources! I added a 1995 monograph to the article, but it predates the 1999 work. That said, consider his decades in India. Especially consider:
1. Cox's statement regarding a ~~the~~ busts of Katie Price - ("these things still have primordial power over men")
2. Cox-titled Lingam of a Thousand Lingams
3. Put 1 and 2 together. Carefully: note Faceted Column dentata! -- Paulscrawl (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of see both, though neither are "these things" and the whole deal is upside down. In the real world, that's often just the way it goes, but in the art world, phallic architecture always presumes the man is laying on his back. Even in India.

The flat base at the top and the clitoris at the bottom are clues; we're meant to tip it and flip it. If everything I know about Tomb Raider is accurate, it should open those doors. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the man is laying on his back, doesn't that mean his sex partner is sitting on him? And in that case, how come the phallus is visible at all? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Get your mind out of the gutter, mate, there's no jackhammering on this street corner. That upside down dick is turning into a pussy, but in a social sense, not a sexual one. Makes walking, talking dicks stop and consider, do I really want to piss here or hit that? If this clearly physically superior phallus is fine with turning tradition on its head, and aiming its ass (not pictured) at the heavens instead, maybe coal miners can wear mascara?

Then, as he considers hopping aboard the metro train (London Underground and Velvet Underground style), some asshole pigeon shits all over him, and British time marches on. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I liken your utterance to the peace of God: it passeth all understanding. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my confusing proclamation, just reading the community spirit (or "zeitgeist") already carved in stone. Don't shoot the lithomancer! What used to be fine and dandy in jolly old England reemerged resexualized. It's no secret that sex sells harder than seashells by the seashore (I originally thought that was a plesiosaur fossil) and the idea of "strong enough for a man, but made for a woman" is just as profitable the other way around. Whether the metrosexual demographic has been replaced by "spornosexual" or "ubersexual" depends on whether you prefer to believe in telegraphs or guardians. If you take a look in the mirror, all British men are united. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fun Fact: The All Bar One (the square building behind the spot) is all about the Cocktail Society. Founded in 1994, the same year metrosexuals were invented. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to my last message from Garcia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Garcia? Garcia? Or Garcia? If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were confusing me. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Message to Garcia? "If I didn't know better ..." - what on Earth makes you think you know better? Confusion is a wonderful state, one I can thoroughly recommend. Enlightenment will surely come soon enough, but try to enjoy your confusion while you can, while you're still bereft of responsibility. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:04, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's much clearer, thanks. But yeah, no thanks for killing the wonder. Don't let the "free time" here fool you, I have quite a few responsibilities. I'm just fortunate enough to bring home my bacon in occasional pig-sized chunks, rather than in steady breakfast portions. I was likely still a kid when you were a man, though, so you'll always know the future before I do. I appreciate the warning! InedibleHulk (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cox stated (of another London installation, Ganapathi and Devi):

"... of great interest to me, the religious idea of the focal stone. In Hinduism this focal stone is frequently the Linga, the symbolof the phallus of Shiva, the great procreative force, and it is usually seen in association with its female counterpart, the Yoni."

-- Interview with Tim Marlow in The Sculpture of Stephen Cox, with essay by Stephen Bann, and interviews by Andrea Schlieker and Tim Marlow, London, 1995, p.45. Cited in Phillip Ward-Jackson, Public Sculpture of the City of London (Liverpool University Press, 2003) p. 54. ISBN 0-85323-977-0

I'll add to article later. -- Paulscrawl (talk) 23:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly related to Cox, but there are other well-endowed religious rockers here at "5 Ancient Gods Whose Genitals Should Have Their Own Movie". Just published yesterday, so it's timely, at least. Our Drukpa Kunley article is sorely lacking the good bits, if anyone's so inclined. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back to authoritative Cox talk:

"...there's another image called a Lingodbhovam, which is the Siva lingam, the phallus, which has carved into its side the form of the female principal, the Yoni, the vulva, which is like a slit, and then standing within that is Siva himself. So you have an idea of godhead within the godhead if you like."

- Stephen Cox, in transcript of almost 8-hour National Life Stories Artists's Lives series interview with Denise Hooker. British Library catalog F4924A C466/30/12, transcript page 305. Grab it while you can at Resource Exchange -- Paulscrawl (talk) 08:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]