Humanities desk
< October 17	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 19 >

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

October 18

Continent?

I've created Category:Aviators by continent. The only problem is Australia and Oceania, with the latter stating "Outside of the English-speaking world, Oceania is generally considered a continent, while Australia is regarded as an island or a continental landmass within that continent." So should the category include:

a category for Australia (Category:Australian aviators) and another for Oceania (Category:Oceanian aviators)
a category just for Oceania encompassing both
a single category for Australia and Oceania (Category:Australian and Oceanian aviators)? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look through Category:Categories_by_continent and see how others do it. Surely this isn't the first time this question has come up... --Wrongfilter (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, we have Category:X of Oceania with a subcategory Category:X of Australia (e.g. Category:Arthropods of Oceania with subcategory Category:Arthropods of Australia; Category:Cinema of Oceania with subcategory Category:Pornography (!) in Australia; Category:Organizations based in Oceania with subcategory Category:Organisations based in Australia; Category:Welfare in Oceania with subcategory Category:Welfare in Australia). --Lambiam 06:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those things by continent put under Europe also things from Iceland, Mallorca and Cyprus, which are, in terms of physical geography, islands in the middle of an ocean, either not part of any continent or tiny continents of their own. Great Britain at least is connected to Europe by the continental shelf, but the other islands I mentioned aren't. So those things by continent take continent (in the social geographical sense) to mean some part of the world that usually roughly coincides with a continent in the physical geographical sense, without actually being one, in such a way that no part is left out. Just like those small islands around Europe are grouped with the European continent, all those islands in the Pacific are grouped with the Australian continent (or the Zealandia submerged continent). But Australia doesn't take such a dominant place within Oceania (although it's still the majority of the land area) and is a country of its own, so in this case the large area is called Oceania, not Australia.

Conclusion: Australia is a continent in the physical geographical sense, Oceania is one in the social geographical sense and Australia is part of it, and those things by continent use the social geographical sense. PiusImpavidus (talk) 15:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USA Vice President

In the USA, a person can be President for only two terms (8 years). Is there any similar restriction for being Vice President? Thanks. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, see Vice_President_of_the_United_States#Term_of_office. --Wrongfilter (talk) 08:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 32.209.69.24 (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bit about the President having only two terms means two consecutive terms. It's still an open question whether, say, Barack Obama, having already had two consecutive terms, could be elected to a third term after the eight-year break in which Trump and Biden occupied the Oval Office. It's never happened (at least not since the Constitution was changed to prevent a repeat of the people exercising their democratic choice to elect F D Roosevelt to a third and a fourth term), and it would probably need a Supreme Court to give it the imprimatur, but many of those who know the US Constitution better than I seem to think it's permissible. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution makes no distinction between consecutive and non-consecutive terms. --Amble (talk) 21:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this question has come up here multiple times, and I'm almost sure what I said above applies. (That's as sure as I can be given the increasing addleness of my brain).

But the 22nd Amendment definitely does not prohibit a former president from being elected vice president and then succeeding as president on the death or resignation of the incumbent. And that could happen an unlimited number of times. Because the Amendment only talks about a limit on being elected president, not on becoming president some other way. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Amble is correct. No one can be elected to more than 2 presidential terms, regardless of whether they are consecutive or not. And as DOR (ex-HK) points out, a person who is ineligible to be elected to the presidency (including one who has already been elected twice) is ineligible to be Vice President. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, I think Obama could become Speaker of the House, and then the presidency and vice-presidency could become vacant at the same time (or too quickly to replace the vice president), at which point he would become Acting President of the United States. We have never had an acting president for any extended length of time (unless you think Tyler was wrong in the first place) so this would be an uncomfortable situation and I won't venture to predict how it would be resolved. --Trovatore (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An ineligible Speaker would be skipped over for the next in the succession queue, iirc the President Pro Tem of the Senate. —Tamfang (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the text on that? The 22nd amendment doesn't actually say that anyone is ineligible to be president, only that they can't be elected president. --Trovatore (talk) 00:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Presidential Succession Act restricts succession to those who "are eligible to the office of President under the Constitution" [1]. This is similar (but not identical) to the language in the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It hasn't been tested whether eligibility in these clauses includes the two-term limit established by the 22nd Amendment; see Twelfth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Interaction_with_the_Twenty-second_Amendment and Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Interaction_with_the_Twelfth_Amendment. So the question is not whether the 22nd Amendment directly applies to the vice presidency and to succession from other offices; the question is whether the eligibility clauses in the 12th Amendment and the Presidential Succession Act incorporate the two-term limit spelled out in the 22nd Amendment. From that point of view, there is no difference between eligibility to the vice presidency and eligibility to succeed as acting president through holding another office. For example, if Barack Obama can be elected vice president, then he could also succeed to the president as Speaker of the House, and vice versa; if he can't be elected vice president, then he can't succeed to the presidency as Speaker of the House either. I believe the (untested and still arguable) general assumption is that he isn't eligible to do either, because "eligibility" in the 12th Amendment and the Presidential Succession Act does in fact incorporate the two-term limit from the 22nd Amendment. --Amble (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sticking point here is that the 22nd amendment doesn't say anyone is ineligible to be president, but only to be elected president, whereas the Presidential Succession Act refers to whether you're eligible to the presidency, not whether you're eligible to be elected president. Now, I grant you could argue etymologically that "eligible" comes from the same root as "elect", and you could possibly say that "ineligible" and "cannot be elected" are the same thing, but I think that's at least a question that would have to be tested in court. --Trovatore (talk) 19:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

I understand. Some agree with you, others do not. It is a debatable and unsettled point. The 12th Amendment and the Presidential Succession Act likewise do not say either "eligible to be president" or "eligible to be elected president". They simply say "eligible to the office of President". There is no verb. In the absence of a definitive precedent, you are free to make of this what you will. --Amble (talk) 19:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought there was a difference here between the presidency (which can be acceded to only by election or by the vice president) versus the acting presidency (which is what the PSA applies to), but it does look like the issues are about the same in both cases. --Trovatore (talk) 22:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"As we clearly state, Obama is not eligible to be VP: "Under the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 'no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President [e.g., Obama!] shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States.'" DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biden, Trump and Carter are available though. —Tamfang (talk) 19:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-related political history trivia Q: Who's the only person to have been POTUS, who never won any Electoral College votes? That would be Gerald Ford, appointed Tricky Dick's VP by Congress under the 25th Amd—with the understanding he had a decent chance of winding up in the Oval Office, as indeed happened. Replacing Spiro Agnew who was caught red-handed taking envelopes of cash in the VP office (continuing a longtime practice of his), and was allowed to plea bargain to an income tax charge in exchange for resigning, as there were some "clouds of suspicion" already re Watergate and influential people cared about giving Headless Agnew the heave-ho before he himself wound up the next POTUS (detailed in Bag Man). (Imagine, a shamelessly corrupt career criminal in the Oval Office!)

Extra fun history stuff the US had no way at all of replacing the VP mid-term prior to the 25th! Ratified less than a decade before it would become "necessary" to call upon. Guess it sometimes helps to think ahead huh. Yes, this meant Truman served his entire first term as prez with no VP, having succeeded FDR. ...The sharp-minded will note that this all provides excellent fuel for potential succession crises and political instability: if the executive and legislature are controlled by opposing parties, if the P/VP can both be thrown overboard—one way or another—under the current rules the de facto "head" of Congress takes over the executive, in a nice orderly political coup. (As students of history ought to know the US system was never "supposed" to have political parties and it shows, a lot. A growing consensus seems to slowly have developed in pol sci that presidential systems are more prone to political instability than ones with some fusion of powers: this illustrates one facet of why.)

If not for the 25th, had Nixon and Agnew both been tossed out via whatever means, meet your 38th POTUS: Carl Albert of and I swear to God I am not making this up Bugtussle, Oklahoma, the "Little Giant from Little Dixie"! In September 1972, Albert was witnessed driving drunk and crashing into two cars in the Cleveland Park neighborhood of Washington.[22] --Slowking Man (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Ford did win electoral votes -- just not in an election that he won. He received 240 electoral votes in the 1976 United States presidential election. That's more electoral votes than George Washington received in his lifetime (of course, there were a lot fewer electoral votes back then). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are of course technically correct... the best kind of correct! Strictly correct phrasing would be, "became POTUS without ever receiving any electoral votes" or, "became both VP/P without ever being elected to either office".

(As for Georgie, it's not like he needed to worry about whether he "won" enough "votes": extremely NSFW audio) --Slowking Man (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs George Canninge

Mrs George Canninge, who acted under that name although her given name was Sarah, was a well-known character actress in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Among other roles, she created that of Miss Prism in The Importance of Being Earnest in 1895. I'd like to put together a short article about her, but I cannot discover her date of death. Grateful for any steer in the right direction. I have access to Ancestry and the British Library Newspaper archive, but have drawn a blank in both. Tim riley talk 10:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alive and living with George at 35 Belsize Avenue, Bowes Park N, Southgate, Middlesex in the 1911 Census. Born Stepney 1843. DuncanHill (talk) 16:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I can trace her into a bit later in the C20th and really need her date of death. But thanks nevertheless Tim riley talk 17:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find their marriage, her maiden name, her birth, or his birth. Do we know if they were even married, was Canninge George's birth name? DuncanHill (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally in the British system, honorifics which a woman owed to being married were not put before her own first name. So Diana, Princess of Wales is correct, but Princess Diana of Wales incorrect. On the level of ordinary married women, this led to Mrs. George Canninge (see Princess Michael of Kent). AnonMoos (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To save anyone from trying to reinvent the wheel I think I should point out that the same question was asked here three years ago and some limited progress was made. Incidentally, everyone there and here seems to have put much faith in stated ages and stated dates of birth. My own 19th-century ancestors usually gave both wrongly, and none of them had the excuse of being an actress. I advise caution. --Antiquary (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World War II: Japanese-Americans in the Japanese military

Were there Japanese-Americans in the Japanese armed forces during World War II? 81.152.122.255 (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Yes. For example, see Internment of Japanese Americans#Proving commitment to the United States and the section of that article just before it. Dekimasuよ! 03:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)~~Sorry, my mistake. Dekimasuよ! 08:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP was asking about the Japanese army, not the American army. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found an excellent article Stranded: Nisei in Japan Before, During, and After World War II that describes several books and other resources about the experiences of Japanese Americans who happened to be in Japan at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. Many of the young men were either conscripted into the Japanese Army or in some cases, served willingly. In one case, Iwao Peter Sano, an American citizen conscripted into the Japanese Army, spent nearly three years in a Soviet POW camp in Siberia, and later wrote a book about his experiences that was published by the University of Nebraska.

US born Tomoya Kawikata was convicted of treason after the war and his story is described in Kawakita v. United States. He was not officially in the Japanese Army but was a translator at a nickel mine under Japanese military control where American and Canadian POWs worked under exceptionally harsh conditions, and he brutalized many prisoners. He was sentenced to death but the sentence was later commuted to life in prison. In 1963, President Kennedy ordered him released as a goodwill gesture. He was deported permanently to Japan. Cullen328 (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. "Brothers went to war, but not all on the same side". fiveby(zero) 15:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. I mean the Japanese army. 81.152.122.255 (talk) 19:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article, Stranded: Nisei in Japan Before, During, and After World War II mentions several Japanese-Americans who were conscripted into the Japanese Army, including a Seattle footballer who published The Two Worlds of Jim Yoshida. Alansplodge (talk) 13:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alansplodge, "footballer" is not a term used in American English. Those who compete in Gridiron football are universally called "football players" and those who play Association football are called "soccer players" in American English. Basketball players are sometimes called "b-ballers" but this is slang usage. Cullen328 (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball players are sometimes called ~~"b-ballers"~~ "cagers", but i didn't know why until[2][3]. Should write that down somewhere. fiveby(zero) 23:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction, the British term seems more concise though. Alansplodge (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is more concise but it is a term largely unknown in American English. Cullen328 (talk) 01:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The goose, Amun-Re, and his goose, the symbol of Amun-Re

I'd love to see this item. "A New Kingdom stela from the Theban workmen's village at Deir el-Medina bears images of two geese associated with Amun-Re: one of them, described as 'the beautiful goose of Amun-Re', is an image of the sacred bird, while the other, 'Amun-Re, the beautiful goose', depicts the god himself."^[1]^[2] I couldn't google up the stela, or find it in Petries "Anhas el-Medineh", and I don't think it's the "Mona Lisa of Egypt" painting of geese from Thebes (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2021.102834), (https://images.metmuseum.org/CRDImages/eg/original/DT226227.jpg) does anybody have a tip? Temerarius (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC) Temerarius (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here ya go! Card Zero (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thank you! I wonder which Huy it is. Is the horizontal line hieroglyph Y1 papyrus? O34 & N37 's'?

Temerarius (talk) 16:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can nearly piece together which Huy. This is catalog item 1607 in the Egyptian Museum of Turin. Item 1608 is another stela of Huy, also from Deir el-Medina. This document mentions "Stela Cat. 1609 of the chief craftsman Huy (TT 361)". I can't find that! But TT 361 is a tomb number, and Osirisnet mentions "Huy, the owner of TT361". So circumstantially it's that Huy. Not one of the famous Huys, just some Huy. "Main carpenter in the place of truth." Regarding the hieroglyphs, I think his name starts at the bottom of the column above his right hand with the tusk, followed by the tied papyrus (what does that do phonetically?) and ends with two reeds at the top of the next column (above his face). I might be totally wrong about it, but his name ought to be there somewhere, right? In which case, the tusk looks annoyingly similar to a straight horizontal line, and probably lots of the other horizontal lines are assorted different hieroglyphs engraved almost identically.

Regarding the god-and-symbol-of-god, presumably the same thing is happening here only with Amon-Ra as a ram this time. Card Zero (talk) 00:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Jsesh, Y1 horizontal papyrus whatsit has sound values dmD, mDAt. Maybe it's being used as a determinative for Hui the scribe in its rendering on the page Huy? Its use with F18 tongue "Hw" (et al) makes me imagine the intended meaning could be related to the concept of word, as it would have been clearer in pronunciation (helpfully redundant) to use an anthopomorphic determinative A24 or A25. Of course, you never know why someone didn't do something.

Temerarius (talk) 18:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://i.postimg.cc/ZnGX3LKQ/image.png
^ Germond, Philippe; Livet, Jacques (2001). An Egyptian Bestiary. New York, N.Y: Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0-500-51059-8.

Presentation of national election polling in America

How come all polls in nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election seem to present the result as percentages of votes in the nationwide voting? Wouldn't it be more interesting to present the number of Electoral College votes each of the candidates can be foreseen to get? It is after all the Electoral College which decides who will become president. GotoGothenburg (talk) 22:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They look at various things: National percentages, percentages by state, and also percentages for the "battleground" states, the so-called "purple" states, which will likely decide the election. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs, it's not presented like that at the page I linked. It is just percentages for the national level. So your answer does not address the question. GotoGothenburg (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean it couldn't be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't be nationwide polling. There are many, many polls available for most states. Especially the battleground states. But you won't find those results if you are looking at nationwide polls. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://i.postimg.cc/ZnGX3LKQ/image.png

[c016-2] Germond, Philippe; Livet, Jacques (2001). An Egyptian Bestiary. New York, N.Y: Thames & Hudson. ISBN 0-500-51059-8.

[1]

[2]