Humanities desk
< February 1	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 3 >

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 2[edit]

US Presidential Staff[edit]

I don't if this is right but Lincoln had only two men on his staff while he was president. In today's day and age, is it possible for the US president (if he desired so) to dismiss the bulk of his staff on his own accord like the secret services and live a more thrifty/normal life? --170.140.105.14 (talk) 02:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's right about Lincoln only having two men on his staff. Certainly not if you include the White House staff. I don't know about the legality of dismissing most of the staff, but there would be serious objections raised if he tried. For example, leaving himself vulnerable to kidnapping would not only endanger him, but the entire nation, as well. StuRat (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama has two full time on call movie projectionists on his staff, in case he can't figure out how to play a DVD at 3am.[1] And no, I don't think he could possibly live a normal human life without them. μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that prior to the 20th century the U.S. presidents kept a much smaller personal staff. IIRC, many of the earliest Presidents were expected to pay for their entire White House staff out of their own pockets, which gave them a bit of incentive to keep things light, many of them probably kept a private secretary for correspondence and a valet for personal service, and maybe a cook and a scullery maid or something like that. But not much else. By the time of Lincoln, however, the staff had probably grown somewhat. The Federal Government funded permanent body guards for him, what with the Civil War and all. Still, when the first telephone was installed at the White House during the administration of Rutherford B. Hayes, if you called the White House, he answered it himself (not that many people had telephones at the time anyways, but still). Like all aspects of the U.S. government, the size of the White House staff grew greatly during the 20th century. --Jayron32 04:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the reference explaining why the White House staff necessarily grew through the 20th century, and the current president needs two full-time on-call movie projectionists is...Rutherford B. Hayes? μηδείς (talk) 06:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't answer the "why" question. I answered the "what" question, which is relates to what the history of the presidential staff size has been at various moments in history. The "Why" question is outside the scope of this desk. Making oblique and obtuse political commentary about the current situation by couching ones political opinions in the form of incredulous statements is also beyond the scope of this desk. --Jayron32 06:28, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, can you find a source that proves that claim other than the single source that seems to be repeated ad infinitum in Google searches? RNealK (talk) 06:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning what by prove? The claim is made in as many reliable sources as you like. I am sure someone would have rebutted the available sources were they false. The White House itself chooses not to give any information about White House staff on its own website. μηδείς (talk) 22:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every source I can find via Google just reiterates the National Review article, which doesn't provide any evidence. I've asked snopes for some evidence. RNealK (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That claim doesn't seem unreasonable, to me. Historically, Presidents would have needed to view some videos dealing with current events, in order to understand what was going on. A recent example would be the anti-Muslim movie clip which was blamed for protests at US embassies, and, initially, the attack on the US embassy in Benghazi. So, two projectionists (in case one was sick or otherwise unavailable) was not unreasonable. However, videos these days are more likely to be in digital format, and fewer skills are required to watch digital videos than to run a film projector, so, at some point, they should probably let those projectionists go and just assign some general tech guys to display videos for the President and staff. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis, the article you linked to made no mention of playing DVD's so where did that come from? I would suspect that the projectionists are for the Family Theater. It has been part of the White House since Franklin D. Roosevelt was president (1942) and, given the pictures on that page, it has been used by several presidents since then. While the only one I see listed is Paul Fischer there must have been other projectionists over the years. Also the White House has been, since 1995, required to give Congress a list of staff which can be seen at http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/disclosures/annual-records/2012 CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 09:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if the president watches many films on a reel. Perhaps he mostly watches blue rays instead of DVD's? My opinion is worthless, you'd have to go to the sources. μηδείς (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[2] suggests Paul Fischer was the projectionist from 1953 to 1986. It doesn't mention if there was only one or if they were employed full time in the role. He's also mentioned in [3] which mentions it was redecorated by Laura Bush. I don't know who paid for that, per the same source during the Reagan years there was an upgrade funded by the movie studios and they also provide movies on request at a moments notice, I'm guessing for no charge. It sounds like no one would have wanted to watch a movie with Clinton so it may have been fortunate used his own theater rather then someone elses. And it seems at least under Paul Fischer the movies were fairly tame, Jimmy Carter was the only one to watch an X-rated movie with Midnight Cowboy although the earlier article suggests it wasn't X when Carter watched it anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 11:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're almost suggesting something salacious on the part of Clinton, Nil Einne. Midnight Cowboy was seen by millions of people at the cinema all over the world, and millions more on TV and DVD ever since. It was nominated for 6 Oscars and won 3, including Best Picture and Best Director. It won 6 BAFTAs. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Long time later but for clarity I'm referring to the fact per the first source, and also the second source to some extent, Clinton liked to talk about the movies for a long time (up to an hour) afterwards. My comment was facetious, since obviously many people wouldn't have minded doing this. And probably Clinton was somewhat attuned to the feelings of his guests and if they seemed like they didn't really want to talk anymore but were reluctant to say anything because he was the president, I expect would have let them go. Still it seems possible some guests were put off by this behaviour. I wasn't referring to anything else he may have done. Popularity of Midnight Cowboy aside, it is or was an X-rated movie, although may or may not have been at the time Jimmy Ccarter watched it. Whether it deserved this rating is of course a moot point. But it's apparently the only one that's been watched on the White House movie theatre. Or at least the only one that anyone revealed. I suspect it is the only one since any President (or other people able to use the theatre) would know there's a strong risk it would eventually leak. Nil Einne (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Painting/painter identification[edit]

Any idea who painted this, or what (if anything) the painting's name is? I can't load the source page, and I'm not sure if the line in the description page, "Allegoria della vita umana", is the painting's title or simply a description of what it is. It's tiny because it might be NSFW, even though it's clearly a classic-style painting rather than pornography. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The file description page File:Cagnacci Allegoria.jpg gives the painter as Guido Cagnacci and the title as Allegoria della vita umana or "Allegory on Human Life". Putting "Allegoria della vita umana" into Google turns up plenty of sources which confirm both of these facts. --Jayron32 04:36, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting pic. The "halo" appears to be a coiled snake, which sends a bit of a mixed message. StuRat (talk) 06:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be an Ouroboros. Together with the hourglass, the picked flowers and of course the skull, it all seems to reference passing of time and is classical memento mori symbolism. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the source link. Those who consider the painting NSFW might wish to see a revised version (still without Burqa). --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you're joking about the NSFW bit, but paintings from the historical past cannot possibly be NSFW. --Viennese Waltz 15:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it must be a joke to censor the eyes and navel, while leaving the breasts visible. StuRat (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Oh wow; I really wasn't paying attention to the description page; I'm sorry. I was still concerned about the potential for a large image of a topless woman, despite its obviously historical nature. Nyttend (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think StuRat is right that an Ouroboros as a Halo (religious iconography) is unusual. Bus stop (talk) 02:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason to believe a country will leave the Eurozone in the near future?[edit]

I still see lots of speculation in newspapers and so on about if the Euro will hold together and whether a 'Grexit' will happen, but I must admit I thought the crisis had died down. Is there any serious chance of a country leaving or even declaring it's intent to leave the Euro in the next months and year or so? 81.159.112.136 (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, we can't give predictions (see the header to the page). We've got no insight into what might happen, beyond what you can read in the papers. I suggest reading a range of serious news magazines. But they don't know, either. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a reference desk, the OP was probably expecting to be provided with references or links to the "range of serious news magazines" to which you refer. I'm not sure an admission of personal ignorance is helpful or even relevant. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 12:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the ref desk header: "We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate". Quite straightforward, really. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, depending on what languages the OP speaks, I would suggest keeping a close eye on the Financial Times, The Economist, anything by Timothy Garton Ash, Le Monde Diplomatique, Der Spiegel and all the German press, El Pais, La Stampa, and one or two of the main papers in Greece. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That ban on predictions seems a bit overly broad. We certainly can provide predictions of solar eclipses, for example. It should probably say something to the effect of "rather than making predictions based on our own intuition, we will only repeat predictions listed in reliable sources". StuRat (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe predictions are OK on the science desk but not on the humanities desk? This one is a good example of a request for prediction that is impossible to respond to, unless the question is completely recast. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. A question phrased as "Do you, o oracle of the reference desk, foresee a Greek exit", is requesting an opinion. The present question has a header which begins "Is there any reason...", and the body of the question ends with a question which begins "Is there any chance..."? Both are perfectly reasonable questions which can be answered with solid references from serious analyticial pieces from, say, the FT or the Economist, as you say. Deliberately interpretating the question to be a request for personal opinion when it is not phrased as anything of the sorts is not helpful.

The caution at the start of the page to which User:Saddhiyama refers is, I think, relevant as much to questioners as it is to responders. If you worked at a reference desk in a library, would your response to the question above be "Oh, I don't know, don't ask me, what a silly question"? Or would it be "Here is what (little) I can find from reputable sources that show what reputable analysts are saying about this possibility"?

Personally I have not come across any recent articles in reputable publications that predict an exit, but others may have. I do not however blame this inability to answer the question on my part on the way the question is phrased. It is perfectly capable of being answered with reputable references. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 14:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK (FT, BBC, NYT) no-one is predicting an exit now, no. Though some still advocate it. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 18:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, prediction is hard, especially about the future. European authorities still punishing Greece - can they be stopped?: The so-called troika's fiscal plans for Greece are the cause of its economic depression, not the solution is an excellent recent article that essentially asks the OP's question, phrased differently. Alexis Tsipras is universally understood to have a decent chance of becoming Greek PM. It is clear that the chance of him leading Greece out of the Euro is nonzero, if the Troika continues to use Greece as a "guinea pig for barbaric, violent neoliberal policies."John Z (talk) 04:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would the U.S. support us?, I am concerned.[edit]

I'm a 55-year-old Japanese citizen and I am increasingly worried about the Senkaku Islands dispute even more since yesterday the PM said that we will defend the islands "at all costs". I have two sons, 20 and 24 year old, they are not in the military and here is not a draft but I don't know if it would be implemented in case of confrontation. What are the probabilities of confrontation? I love peace. The Japanese people love peace. We love the Chinese as brothers of Asia, yet they burn our flag. Kotjap (talk) 21:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is, unfortunately, the sort of thing that the Ref Desk can't really answer. We are not a crystal ball and can't predict the future. However, I can tell you that the US military is shifting its long-term strategic position towards the Pacific, so it certainly seems likely that they're considering things like the outbreak of hostilities over the various territorial disputes in that part of the world. As for China-Japan relations... that's a long and complicated history with a lot of bad feelings and blame on both sides. — Lomn 21:45, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot predict the future, so we can't offer certainty. However, as an educated American who has closely followed international affairs for several decades, I cannot imagine the United States allowing itself to be pulled into war with China over the Senkakus. Nor, in the end, do I believe that Japan would defend those uninhabited rocks "at all costs". I think the most likely outcome, if outright war seemed in the offing, would be for John Kerry to fly immediately to Tokyo and then to Beijing and to negotiate a compromise that would avoid a military conflict while allowing both sides to save face. Marco polo (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Marco, as we're currently discussing on the Talk page, we should not be offering personal commentary like what you've just given ("I cannot imagine", "I do not believe", "I think" etc). If you can find a published commentary in a reputable source that says more or less what you just said, you can provide a link to it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:48, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the article says it is included in the US defence agreement with Japan. If China actually occupied the islands they would be considered enemies of the United States and from past experience it is very hard to change that status - it requires an abject apology or a revolution which changes their government. Dmcq (talk) 23:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The possibility of China and Japan going to war over the islands is so infinitesimally tiny that it's not worth losing sleep over. It's more likely that you'll be struck by lightning more than seven times or that Kim Kardashian and Lindsay Lohan will jointly come up with a theory of everything. The Japanese Prime Minister is just posturing. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 11[edit]

I listened to the final minutes of the call by flight attendant Betty Ong to American Airlines Emergency Line and she said that she was sat at jump seat 3R. Can anybody tell me where on this map is jump seat 3R? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jump seats on airliners are typically at the very front or back of the cabin, in the galley areas or otherwise separated from passenger seats. At a guess, "R" in this case means "rear", and would put 3R at the far right end of the linked image. I guess this in part because I expect a flight attendant would have had an easier time making a call from the rear of the airplane, away from where the hijackers were operating. — Lomn 21:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Betty Ong has a transcript of the call. In it she says

Betty Ong: I'm, I'm sitting in the back somebody's coming back from business....we can't even get up to business class right now because nobody can breathe.

So Lomn's supposition is correct -- she was in the back. ~~Also, the seating map gives an alphabetized list of people on board and their seat number -- she and two other people are listed as being in 27C.~~ Duoduoduo (talk) 14:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Manu Sarren[edit]

Can it be true that Manu Sareen is not the first Danish minister of different ethnic origins but that it was Isi Foighel? --80.161.143.239 (talk) 21:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, although it depends what you mean by 'different ethnic origins'. Manu Sareen is quite clearly not ethnically Danish. Isi Foighel was born in Chemnitz, Germany, to Jewish parents. However, Germans are very close relations to the Danes, so it's difficult to say that he is of 'different ethnic origins' by virtue of being German. If we say that his ethnicity is 'Jewish', there was a previous Jewish Danish politician in Edvard Brandes. In summary; it may be true that Manu Sareen is the first 'non-white' Danish minister (whatever that means), but he is not the first born outside Denmark. Isi Foighel may have been the first non-Danish Christian minister, but was not the first Danish Jewish politician. Like most European countries and cultures, Denmark is a fascinating melting pot of many different origins, races and religions, and has been for many centuries. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 00:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Price of Victory[edit]

It has been said by a historian that during the American Civil War the Federal Government won the war with one arm tied behing it's back. Can this be said of America's participation in World War 2? Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonQ.2 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC) GordonQ.2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonQ.2 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do homework. The question sounds like homework. Where did it come from? Can you link to some independent source that makes this claim? μηδείς (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which bit do you want explained? Do you understand what the question is asking you to do? What do you think the answer is? ---- _nonsense ferret 23:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, I Googled the whole question and found: Shelby Foote pronounced the Confederate bid for independence doomed from the start. "I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back," observed Foote. If the Confederacy ever had come close to winning on the battlefield, "the North simply would have brought that other arm out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that war."[4] Alansplodge (talk) 00:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]