Humanities desk
< February 24	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 26 >

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

February 25

Numbering of Sapphic fragments

My earlier question about an apple was answered with a poem by Sappho. In the course of the answer, and my subsequent reading, it became apparent to me that there are different numberings of the surviving fragments. Is there such a thing as a comparison or cross-reference for the different numberings? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This page shows the various numberings of each fragment and should be useful. - Nunh-huh 00:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that is helpful - and by a Wikipedian too! DuncanHill (talk) 01:02, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aztec cooking

What is that flower-like "thing"[1] floating above the stove-top? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you get an answer, would love to know too. Suspect it could be one of the logographs in the Aztec writing system? Unfortunately, the references for Florentine Codex are largely offline.184.147.120.176 (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks similar to the object being held in the upper portion of this image. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How is he smoking tobacco?
Sleigh (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Elderly Aztecs smoking and drinking pulque

It's a flower. This isn't simply cooking or eating, it's a formal feast. An important part of such feasts, probably as much as the food, was the smoking of tobacco and the smelling of (or rubbing oneself with) flowers. Even their handling was formalised: as warriors were the exemplary citizens, the movements of such a formal feast were modelled on those of warriors. Flowers were categorised as 'shield' or 'sword' flowers and these were passed from hand to hand in the same way: 'swords' were given from a servant's left hand to the diner's right, 'shields' v.v. Tobacco was smoked in the black tubes, also illustrated. The curled glyphs represent smoke - similar glyphs are used to represent breath or possibly speech. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it's a stylised depiction of a flower, and/or the flowers were inserted into ceremonial receptacles? PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetics of American fashion photography

Several years ago, American fashion photographer Jerry Avenaim registered an account at Commons and uploaded a bunch of images; these include the current infobox images for popular actor Mark Harmon and TV personality Dr. Phil, among others. As you can see from his article, this guy's at the top of his profession; we can assume that he doesn't make stupid decisions in the photos he takes. Some of these photos, such as his images of Captain Kirk and Jada Pinkett Smith, feature their subjects at a slight angle with part of the head cut off. Why is such a thing a good idea, i.e. in what contexts would the photographer choose to get most of the head but not all of it? Of course, if the subject didn't want all of his head shown, we can chalk that up to bizarre individual preference, but seeing that several images are this way, I think we can conclude that it's an intentional choice by the photographer, not a silly request by a subject. Nyttend (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is the account still active? If so, you could ask him directly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. See Special:Contributions/Jerry Avenaim and Special:Contributions/Jerry Avenaim~commonswiki. I didn't do it, because I knew he hadn't been active in years, but you couldn't know that I'd checked; thanks for the suggestion. Nyttend (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You could also try emailing him, as it's possible the email address he used here is still active. One thing you sometimes see on magazine covers is the top of the head similarly sliced off. I assumed that was to emphasize the face more, but it could just be some trendy thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a method of expressing headroom so that the rule of thirds takes precedence. Here is one particular photographer's explanation of why he chooses that aesthetic. Matt Deres (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from a painting background, composition that crops the subject allows a sense of "more" (exceeding the grid) so as to avoid the prosaic explicitness of a figure or subject fully framed and not cropped. But yes, conventional (as in non-arty) viewers don't like it usually – they want the subject to be "whole" – especially if it's of themselves, family, or a client, so that you end up with the aesthetic of City Aldermen/Councillors headshots, non-dynamic, no elected focus enhancement, with nothing left to the imagination. I think that's what makes this guy good in his chosen field. Manytexts (talk) 08:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A party declining to re-nominate their President as their second-term candidate

This part is not my actual question, just an explanation of the phenomenon: Imagine Donald Trump is an electoral disaster. The 2020 Presidential election comes around. He wants to run for a second term. The Republican party primaries and caucus deem him "unelectable", and refuse to endorse him as their candidate for a go at a second term. (He could, of course, run as an independent or whatever, but that's not my question).

NOW, we cannot speculate about what will happen in 2020. The rules forbid it, and it's not what I'm asking. My initial paragraph was just an example of a possibility, to illustrate what I'm asking.

My question is, has such a thing ever happened in American history - Where the President wanted to run for a second term, but the party said "not as our candidate!"?

I am aware that some Presidents have chosen not to run for a second term. Or run for a second term, and lost. I am also aware of occasions where, before the two term limit was introduced, the party may have "disendorsed" a President for another term post-second-term (possibly, not sure about this). My question is purely about a refusal to endorse a President as their party's candidate (who wants to run as such for a go at re-election) for a second term. Has this ever happened? And if yes, to which Presidents, at which elections? Eliyohub (talk) 14:18, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of... in the Election of 1912, Teddy Roosevelt wanted to run for a third term... however, he has been out of office for four years, and the Republicans ended up re-nominating the sitting President (Taft). Blueboar (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Franklin Pierce qualifies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lyndon B. Johnson served part of Kennedy's term, then a full term and was allowed to serve another full term but withdrew after narrowly winning the first primary in the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1968. It was probably a major factor in his decision that it was very uncertain whether he could win, but he withdrew early enough to not officially lose. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, Chester A. Arthur, although he didn't make all that much of an effort to secure the nomination. Deor (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not much of a surprise there, for personal and political reasons. Arthur was rather popular with the public (though not really with politicians), but it was widely known that he was in poor health. He suffered from Bright's disease, a chronic kidney disease. Within the Republican Party, various factions supported their leaders as Arthur's potential replacements. Arthur only ever made a token effort to win the nomination and did not campaign for it. His term of office ended in March, 1885, and Arthur spend much of the year incapacitated in his own house. He was seriously ill again in 1886, and died in November 1886. Dimadick (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is always the unpopular John Tyler. President from the Whig Party, serving from 1841 to 1845.

Tyler used to be a founding member of the Democratic Party, joining in 1828, though he often opposed the policies of party leader Andrew Jackson. By 1834, Tyler was regularly voting with the Whigs. In 1836, he resigned from his political career and the Democratic Party. Months later, he re-emerged as a potential nominee for Vice President for the Whigs. Actually the Whigs nominated several candidates for the same election, including Tyler. He did not get elected, as he only received 47 electoral votes.

Tyler soon returned to politics, in an alliance with the Whigs. Despite a decent relationship with party leader Henry Clay, Tyler did not get much political support from other members of the Party. In 1840, Tyler hoped to again win the Whig's nomination for Vice President. William Henry Harrison won the nomination for President in a rather bitter contest. Tyler was chosen as his vice-presidential candidate, despite his own home state of Virginia opposing his candidacy.

In the election of 1840, the Whigs run a groundbreaking and effective political campaign and rallied popular support for Harrison. They won 234 electoral votes, 53% of the popular vote, and control of both houses of Congress. Virginia, Tyler's home state, was one of a few actually won by the Democratic Party. Reflective of Tyler's unpopularity in his home state.

As the new Vice-President-elect, Tyler was not particularly active in politics. Harrison reportedly asked for his advice on only two occasions. Tyler was sworn in as Vice-President in March, 1841, but then returned to his plantation in Virginia. As Vice-President, he refused to set foot in Washington, D.C. and kept his distance from the political scene. Harrison died in April, 1841, the first President to die in office. Nobody was certain whether Tyler would become President or merely acting president. He personally considered himself President and demanded to be sworn in.

As a gesture of good will, Tyler kept the entire cabinet of his predecessor. That cabinet included several of his political enemies. The cabinet tried to exercise executive power, by deciding matters by popular vote between its members. Tyler protested and insisted that the executive power to decide belonged to the President. Tyler got his way, but many Whigs and Democrats considered him to be an illegitimate President. He faced opposition with both parties.

As the new President, Tyler had policy disputes with the Whigs in Congress and their de facto leader, Henry Clay. His former ally, was Tyler's main rival for leadership of the party. By September, 1841, Clay orchestrated a scheme to force Tyler to resign as President. Tyler refused to do so, and was officially expelled from the Party. Most Whig politicians and the party affiliated press turned against, and Tyler started receiving a large number of death threats.

When Tyler rose to the office, the United States was in a prolonged economic crisis (it had started in 1837 and was still ongoing in the 1840s) and the federal government faced a huge budget deficit. Tyler took measures to increase revenue, that were considered highly controversial. He also vetoed several policy proposals by the Whig-controlled congress. In 1842, College tried twice to impeach Tyler, but both initiatives failed due to lack of sufficient political support. Both parties (Whigs and Democrats) were against him, but failed to co-ordinate their efforts against him.

Tyler's efforts in international diplomacy, trade, and military reforms were largely successful, despite political opposition. He gained the support of the United States Navy, which experienced increased funding for the creation of more warships. The College merely blocked most efforts of Tyler to appoint cabinet members and members of the Supreme Court. Tyler still holds the record for most rejections of his appointments.

Tyler devoted much effort to a plan to annex the Republic of Texas, an idea that had previously been rejected by Andrew Jackson and Martin Van Buren. The initiative was relatively unpopular, and much of the leadership of the Whigs and Democrats rejected it. However there were expansionist factions in both parties and the measure was accepted. Texas was annexed in 1845, though Tyler was no longer in office.

In the election of 1844, Tyler unsuccessfully sought the nominations of the Whigs and the Democrats. He also formed his own third party, using his own political networks. Andrew Jackson, in retirement but still active behind-the-scenes, offered to have Tyler rejoin the Democratic Party, if he dropped out of the election race. Tyler accepted. He dropped out of the race and placed his political support behind the Democratic candidate, James K. Polk. Polk was narrowly elected, and agreed to conclude some of Tyler's political projects. Tyler soon retired from politics and returned to his plantation in Virginia.

Throughout his career as President, Tyler was hated by both parties, including the one which elected him. He was never nominated as President by any major Party. He was one of the most controversial Presidents in the 19th century. Dimadick (talk) 20:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Trump's primary re-election could run the same way as last time. That is, the majority of Republicans may not want him, but if they again have 16 nominees running against him, they will again split the vote, giving him the plurality. A plurality isn't sufficient to become the nominee, but after some of the others drop out, that becomes a majority. What they really need is a run-off, where they narrow it down to Trump and one other, then decide between them. (Either that or they need 16 Trump clones, so they will each split Trump's vote.) StuRat (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How does one go about making a "Trump clone"? Whom would you suggest the Republicans recruit as the proposed "Trump clone" candidate, to split the "Trump vote"? I think he's somewhat one-of-a-kind? Don't try Arnold Schwarzenegger, as a foreign citizen he's ineligible. (Not suggesting he's any "Trump clone" as such, just someone else from the Entertainment industry with political history). So, whom do you suggest the Republicans might recruit to nominate themselves to act as a "Trump vote splitter"? Any suggestions? Eliyohub (talk) 00:58, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll just need to collect Trump's fingernail clippings. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Oh, I was thinking of multiple Trump piñatas imported from Mehico...Manytexts (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did Soviet aviation use ICAO phonetic alphabet?

'Cause I can't recall hearing anything like "Alpha", "bravo", "tango" in any Soviet film or documentary. Thanks. Brandmeister^talk 17:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article, Russian spelling alphabet. The Soviet Union was not initially a party to the Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, but when they did eventually sign up (I have been unable to find out when), they must have then started to use the the "Alpha-Bravo" alphabet for international civil flights, as prescribed in Annex 10 of that treaty. Alansplodge (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the ICAO, the Russian Federation (which in this context I assume means the USSR) deposited a notification of adherence to the convention on 15 October 1970. John M Baker (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who built the airports in Nigeria, and when?

Abuja (Nigeria) airport being closed for upgrades. Abuja and Kaduna airports both have runways that are jumbo jet capable. Kind of bizarre when the biggest problems, besides terrorists, are goats. So now I am wondering who built these airports? And when? Bogwon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.43.36.155 (talk) 20:11, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the CIA Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ni.html):

"Following an April 2014 statistical "rebasing" exercise, Nigeria has emerged as Africa's largest economy, with 2015 GDP estimated at $1.1 trillion. Oil has been a dominant source of income and government revenues since the 1970s. ... Nigeria’s economic growth over the last five years has been driven by growth in agriculture, telecommunications, and services. Economic diversification and strong growth have not translated into a significant decline in poverty levels, however - over 62% of Nigeria's 170 million people still live in extreme poverty."

This paradox seems to be an example of the curse of oil. That is, the nature of oil means that it can be extracted by a few people, who become rich, leaving everyone else with little or nothing. Rich people, and the governments they control, tend to build things like modern airports, as opposed to improving the lives of poor people. StuRat (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Abuja Airport nor Kaduna Airport articles describe their construction, but the former does detail failed attempts at earlier upgrades. StuRat (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria website: Nnamdi Azikwe International Airport (Abuja) "was built in the early 2000 and opened in 2002" [2] and Kaduna Airport "was officially commissioned in 1982 under the management of the Nigerian Airports Authority (NAA)" [3] 184.147.120.176 (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our Federal Airports Authority of Nigeria article mentions that Kaduna was one of the sites chosen for airfields by the British Air Ministry "in the early 1930s", although this is presumably Old Kaduna Airport. Alansplodge (talk) 01:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of Queen Victoria, Senate Foyer, Centre Block, Ottowa, Canada

Resolved

According to our article Centre Block, there is a portrait of Queen Victoria in the Senate Foyer that has been rescued from fire four times. The article only mentions one of these times, the Great Fire of 1916, saying this was the second time. I would like to know what the other occasions were, and also who the artist was. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about this?[4] I found it by googling "queen victoria painting saved from fire". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a portrait of her in her later years, any number of people might have been tempted to toss that in the fireplace. :-) StuRat (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC) [reply]

In 1842 she was 25, and looked like this. Actually she was very popular towards the end of her reign. Alansplodge (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

She was hot stuff when she was young. After her beloved Prince Albert was permanently canned, she kind of let herself go. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, by then she'd given birth to 9 children. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, a) her statue is in the library, which escaped the big fire, and b) the capital of the world's second-largest country is spelled 'Ottawa'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs) 18:51, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A) If I had been interested in a statue in the library I would have asked about a statue in the library. I wasn't, so I didn't. B) I made a spelling mistake, oh woe. DuncanHill (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or is it Oh wa. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was painted by John Partridge (artist), and is pictured on this page. DuncanHill (talk) 19:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]