Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 January 20

= January 20 =

What are the names of Annie Oakleys siblings?
I am doing a project for school and I need this information. I would really appreciate any information you might be able to provide.

Regards, Iluvgofishband —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 01:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here are the names of her parents and four older sisters, though our article says Sarah Ellen, whereas the other source says just Ellen. The sixth child, according to Wikipedia, was named Phoebe Ann. The last child had a different father. This mentions a brother, while this refers to a "brother John". Bear in mind that there is a hidden comment in our article that says "Wrong names are especially frequent" in Oakley biographies. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * MY BAD. Phoebe Ann is Annie's name. Our article mentions a brother John and a sister Hulda. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

DOES ANYBODY KNOW!!!!!!! THE PROJECT IS DUE BY LIKE FRIDAY!!! PLEASE HELP!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 03:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sadly we are forbidden by good sense to do people's homework for them, and you need to check the Annie Oakley article, Clarityfield's answer, sign your posts with four of these: ~, not shout with all capitals (they act like flyspray on our goodwill) and google search too. Best, Julia R. 11:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Saint Praxed
Who was Saint Praxed? I'm studying Robert Browning's poem "The Bishop Orders His Tomb at Saint Praxed's Church", and I've been able to ascertain that the church actually exists, but I can't figure out who it was named for. Neelix (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * According to this she was a martyred Roman virgin. But why not ask her at User talk:St Praxed :) DuncanHill (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Bingo, found her - she's Praxedes. DuncanHill (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously we need redirects for Praxed and Saint Praxed. Tb (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I have google searched every single possible combo, but i found it all in a book except for her latter siblings names, anybody know those? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 03:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not Saint Praxed's but you might like to pop into the question above, ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Student Loans
Does anyone know if a student could get a federal student loan for an organization like this one which provides college accredited educational programs abroad?--Elatanatari (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody?--Elatanatari (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Elatanatari, at their FAQ page there's a link to apply for scholarships. The best thing is to contact them to ask if they are recognised by the system. They'd know. Course accreditation is probably no indication that they are government-accredited as an educational institution. Does this site help at all? Julia Rossi (talk) 22:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they already gave me a scholarship to go to West Africa this past semester. Incredible generosity. This time, I'm hoping to travel to China and I'm completely independent from my parents, and while they are offering me another scholarship, its not quite enough. I guess they aren't since it stands to reason that they would direct me toward those resources like you said. Thanks!--Elatanatari (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! Hope you find something to fill the $gap. :) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:45, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

"English-speaking world"
I'm looking for concepts and terms naming those parts of world population whose native language is English; or maybe narrower, who feel themselves as part of an English-based culture. --KnightMove (talk) 10:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A History of the English-Speaking Peoples. Algebraist 10:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Anglophone and/or anglo-saxon are what you are looking for. (Anglophone for any English speaking countries, anglo-saxon for essentially white-majority English speaking countries..).86.6.101.208 (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok... would, say, an Irish American or a German American define himself as "Anglo-Saxon"? --KnightMove (talk) 12:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * An Irishman or Welshman certainly wouldn't, and I'm not sure many Englishmen would either. I certainly wouldn't. Algebraist 13:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There's also the concept of the Anglosphere -- Ferkelparade &pi; 12:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What President left office the night before inauguration of his successor?
I heard on the radio that one United States president didn't take the traditional ride with the incoming President, and left the night before, but a quick Google searchw ith those terms isn't helping. (Too many articles about the current inauguration for "outgoing President," I guess.) Anyone know who it was? The fellow said it was even mentioned on the History Channel a few nights ago. (Hmmm, I ugess I could look there. :-)Thanks.172.129.144.3 (talk) 13:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Andrew Johnson, 1869, impeached. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how the 1868 impeachment and acquittal of Johnson would impact his ability to attend an inauguration the following year. &mdash; Lomn 21:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You're probably thinking of John Adams, who slipped out of town at 4:00 am the morning of Jefferson's inauguration. —Kevin Myers 16:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, and there was no "ride" with Jefferson to take. No horse-drawn carriage for a republican presidential inauguration, thank you very much—too much like royalty. —Kevin Myers 16:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The streets of Washington could be knee-deep mud in the early days, but one source I found said Jefferson at his first inauguration "disregarded the precedents of the two Federalist President, who at their inauguration had been accompanied to the capitol in state, and walked with a few friends to the simple ceremony." (Of course the Jefferson inauguration was the first in DC; the earlier inaugurations were, iirc in New York and Philadelphia). "The Road to Monticello" by Hayes says Jefferson was staying at a boarding house at New Jersey Avenue and C street, on the south side of Capitol Hill, so the trip was a short one.(2 blocks or so per MapQuest). Washington and Adams had ridden in carriages to the ceremony at their inaugurations.  says Jefferson rode up Pennsylvania Avenue to the capitol for his second inauguration in 1805, and  says he rode a horse down Pennsylvania Avenue accompanied by a crowd, with a band playing music on the trip back. "'I Do Solemnly Swear' - Presidential Inaugurations From George Washington to George W. Bush" by Morledge (2008)  looks like a nice history of inaugurations, with details beyond the texts of the addresses. Edison (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Where was Nixon when Ford was inaugurated? It seems unlikely that Ford would have wanted him there - but since he was about to become a completely innocent man maybe Ford didn't mind. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * According to Presidency of Gerald Ford, Ford took the oath of office in the East Room of the White House -- so it wasn't the usual elaborate ceremony. Watergate scandal is conflicted; the text says Nixon left the White House shortly after his resignation became effective; the photo caption says he left shortly before, going by helicopter to Andrews AFB.  In either case, he wasn't a witness. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Help with settling an arguement
Can someone help me settle an arguement for me which is whether or not Abraham Lincoln was the first black president. From what I was told it's on mothers side the person that adament about it says it's his grandmother or something. I really don't know if its true or not, so can anyone help ?

Scotius (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See Nancy Hanks and Melungeon / Melungeon DNA Project.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * While Lincoln may have had distant black-African and Native American ancestors, it is not clear how far back it may have gone. The main evidence is that Nacny Hanks, Lincoln's mother, was born in an area of Virginia known for racial mixing between Blacks, Indians, and Whites.  The matter is complicated by the fact that the genalogical record is confused by two different Nancy Hanks from Virginia born at around the time Lincoln's mother should have been born, and it is unclear which is her.  The deal is, Nancy Hanks's ancestors are not well known, so it is entirely speculative that Lincoln MAY have had black African ancestry.  However, it would be incorrect to say that he was Black, which in America is entirely about ones relationship with the culture.  There is no evidence that Lincoln self-identified as anything but White, and there is also no evidence that anyone in the culture related to him as anything but White, so it is not accurate to claim in any way that he may have been Black.  Obama, on the other hand, clearly meets the definition of Black as commonly understood, especially as he is likely to be treated by the culture he is in; based on his appearence.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  16:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Also note that, if there was any evidence that Lincoln was black, or even if any of his relatives even appeared black, this certainly would have been used against him at the time, as there's no way, at that time, that the majority of Americans would have voted for even a partially black President. So, if he was partially black, that was something nobody at the time seemed to know, which makes this theory unlikely to be true. StuRat (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually it was one of the political rumors that was used against Lincoln by his opponents in his day. In any case, the question of whether anyone in their time "seemed to know" is rather spurious—people have been "passing" for hundreds of years without people knowing it. When people say Lincoln was "Black" they mean, as Jayron explains, that he might have had distant Black ancestors, not that he had coal-black skin. (As a slightly later analog of the same sort of reasoning, see the one-drop rule.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 18:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But, if there was anything to it, I'd expect Lincoln to have been defeated. StuRat (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you know, a majority didn't vote for Lincoln. —Tamfang (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

An example of a claim that Lincoln had African ancestry is found in "The Old Guard," in the column "Omnium," Sept 1, 1863 says (p 239), which noted a pamphlet (the 1860's equivalent of today's blogs in being self published and not generally unreliable) saying Abe was "part negro." The publication I link to, "The Old Guard," in the "Omnium" column says that they have "always known" that V.P. Hannibal Hamlin was part negro based on opposition publications when he was running for office (the 19th century version of today's mudslinging and Swift Boating, and again not even then generally accepted as reliable). Hamlin was claimed to be 1/16 negro. Senator Sumner was claimed to have a great-great-grandmother who was a negro. The writer claimed he could see negro ancestry in Hamlin and Sumner, but not in Lincoln. Other Civil War papes in the South claimed he was part negro. Northern Democrats and their papers were given to speculate that Lincoln had "negro blood." Claims that he had Melungeon ancestry appear to be very recent, dating back only to 1997, per  which attributes the claim to Brent Kennedy and Robin Kennedy, "The Melungeons" (1997) pages 28-31. Some want Lincoln to be of Semitic background, specifically Sephardic Melungeons. Edison (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be no more correct to say that Abraham Lincoln was African-American, than it would be to say that Tom Hanks, a descendant of Nancy Hanks's brother, is African-American. AnyPerson (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

If we can't say he is black, what about saying he was of black descent ? Scotius (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Problem there is that, as evidence suggests that the earliest humans arose in Africa, *everyone* is of black descent. Thus, saying "of black descent" is synonymous with saying "human". Wikiant (talk) 12:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Peaceful?
Rev. Rick Warren delivered the invocation at Obama's inauguration a few minutes ago. He said today's event is the 44th peaceful transfer of power in the U.S.

It does not seem to be correct to me as George Washington's rise to power was, well, not very peaceful.

Do they hire some people to check their speeches? -- Toytoy (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Washington took over entirely peacefully from Cyrus Griffin, President of Congress. This was six years after the peace treaty with Britain and 8 years after fighting ended. Rmhermen (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC with above) Actually, given that Washington assumed power in 1789 from the Continental Congress, it was a rather peaceful transition. The Continental Congress's assumption of power from, ultimately, George III of the United Kingdom, was of course rather violent, but the assumption of the power by Washington was a rather uneventful day in New York... --Jayron32. talk . contribs 18:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that George III was not king of the United Kingdom at the time; he was king of Great Britain and Ireland. He became king of the United Kingdom in 1801, after the Act of Union.
 * God, I hate the ridiculous Wiki policy on naming monarchs - it goes completely against common usage. No-one ever calls him "George III of the United Kingdom". Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the (principal) place he was king of. How would you disambiguate him from George III of Georgia and George III, Prince of Anhalt-Dessau? Algebraist 20:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that this is the place for this discussion – I'd use brackets, as per standard disambiguation procedure. ie George III (United Kingdom). It is ludicrous that Queen Victoria, for example, is referred to as Victoria of the United Kingdom but, you know, policy is policy. Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * In ordinary language Victoria of the UK could as easily mean her daughter (cf Catherine of Aragon). –Tamfang (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The airwaves were quite full of self-congratulatory opinions claiming that "only in the United States" are there such "peaceful transfers of power". You had to wonder if the newscasters had any concept of say, France, the UK, Denmark, etc. When was the last coup in Andorra? Switzerland? - Nunh-huh 03:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps they intend to ignore monarchies? Still, that leaves France...and dozens of other republics...but have any of them had 44 peaceful transfers in a row, or for 230 years in a row? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * France?!? You have got to be kidding! France has hardly been a stable state over the past 230 years, having in that timeframe changed forms of government quite frequently and rather violently (anyone remember French Revolution, Napoleonic Wars, July Revolution, the 1848 Revolution, Paris Commune, etc. etc.) Heck, even as recently as 1958 (The Algieria Crisis) France had a rather tenuous collapse and reorganization.  Actually, given that France pretty much changes its form of government in a rather dramatic way every 30-40 years or so, its quite overdue.  The French Fifth Republic is by far the longest acting French government (at only 50 years old) since the Revolution.  Of course, the U.S. did fight a war over the election of a President so I guess we lose that one too... Yeah, its a clear case of American Exceptionalism.  But its not all that inaccurate when you try to dig through the history of the several-hundred-odd other countries to exist in the past 230 years and compare their history to the U.S., the U.S. certainly comes out in the top half in terms of "relatively peaceful transfers of power".  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgot the May 1968 Revolution that drove DeGaulle from power. So that's 40 years since the last violent overthrow of a leadership.  Way to go France!  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Charles De Gaulle wasn't overthrown by a violent revolution, any more than Lyndon Johnson was overthrown by the protest movement in the 1960s, Edward Heath by the striking miners, or George W Bush was overthrown by the Iraq War. The Gaullists did well in the June 1968 elections, and De Gaulle resigned a year later over opposition to his plans for reforming the French senate and disputes with Pompidou (see Gaullist Party).  That's hardly a modern equivalent of the French Revolution.
 * Meanwhile Sweden has had a fairly stable government for hundreds of years; Gustav III of Sweden came to power in a largely bloodless coup in 1771 and as far as I can tell from History of Sweden it's been boring since then. The Republic of Switzerland was conquered by Napoleon I until 1815 and had a very minor civil war in the 1840s (0.05% of the casualties of its American equivalent), but generally there's been nearly 200 years of stability and even greater boringness.  (History of Switzerland) --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And while we're about it, when was the last non-peaceful transfer of power in Britain? The 17th century, I think you'll find. Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's completely inaccurate. The commentators weren't discussing 230 years of uninterrupted changes in power, but simply the fact that a change in power was happening without gunfire. It's not merely exceptionalism, it's incredibly parochial. They actually apparently thought peaceful transfer of power was a rare thing. And they certainly provided no limitations on their claims ("other than monarchies...", "not counting our Civil War...", "we're in the top 50%....", etc. - Nunh-huh 05:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, is it a peaceful transition of power when the president is shot through the head?. That seems a fairly violent transition to me. Malcolm XIV (talk) 09:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, yes: the successors of assassinated Presidents didn't have to fight for the job, and there's little evidence that promoting the veep was part of the assassins' motive. (And to pick a nit, only two of those were head shots.) —Tamfang (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking of peaceful transitions of power, the inauguration seemed more like a change of monarch or some such then a simple change in government (yes yes I know he's the head of state too). Is there really need for all that nonsense? Do other republics have the same thing or is it related to the fact the Americans were inspired by the British system except for the actual unelected head of state bit? Nil Einne (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I get the impression that heads of state in Latin America have rather more pomp than this. The POTUS doesn't have a special sash or an admiral's hat, for example.  Judges are another story.  —Tamfang (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oath of office botched by Chief Justice Roberts
Chief Justice botched the administration of the oath of office to Barack Obama. Was this the worst botch in the history of the administration of it, and if the words as uttered by Obama are switched around a bit from what is specified in the Constitution does it still count, or is a do-over (perhaps with less ceremony) required? The official oath says "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Roberts, with several stutter steps and restatements led the oath taking by saying "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear that I will execute the office of President to the United States faithfully, the off-, faithfully the pres-, the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Despite this, Obama managed to recite the correct oath except for saying "execute the office of President of the United States faithfully" rather than "faithfully execute the office of President of the United States." Has any previous taker of the Presidential oath switched the words around a bit? Edison (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sure of two things.
 * It absolutely and completely doesn't matter at all, and no one who matters will care one bit.
 * The nutjobs will seize upon that little bit and declare that everything Obama does from this day forward is invalid. Of course, they are entirely wrong, but it will just give them something to seize on.
 * As far as prior glitches, I am not sure if there have been any. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If someone wants to be really picky about it, Obama, a judge (or other qualified official), and some witnesses could just get together sometime tonight and go through it correctly. And being the tech savvy person he is, Obama could put that up on YouTube.  Dismas |(talk) 22:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone that picky should notice that the constitution does not require the presence of a qualified official or any witnesses. It simply requires that the oath/affirmation be taken. Algebraist 22:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A witness would be generally considered necessary to substantiate the reciting of the Constitutionally required words. It does not say "or words to that effect." Edison (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ABC News says Chief Justice Taft flubbed the oath giving to President Hoover in 1929, substituting "maintain" for "protect." The Great Depression ensued later that year (not implying any causality). NY Times  says Coolidge did a "do-over" oath by a Supreme Court justice "when questions were raised" about the adequacy of his swearing-in by his father. Edison (talk) 00:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Odds are that Roberts will administer the oath another five times or so. Hopefully he'll get better with practice! —Kevin Myers 01:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It was widely noted that Princess Diana botched her marital oath. She took "Charles Arthur Phillip George" to be her husband, not "Charles Phillip Arthur George". But nobody ever suggested she married the wrong man (well, not for that reason alone, anyway), or that the marriage was invalid. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We're talking about radical conservative bloggers here though. I don't mean to say that we corner the market on political quackery though...  :-) Dismas |(talk) 03:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Does that mean neither commited adultery because they weren't married to each other? You might say it only applied to her but I don't think a one sided marriage is legal. Maybe they actually did a do-over and didn't tell anyone? Perhaps Prince Andrew is waiting to his brother dies and then he can challenge for the crown based on the illegitimacy of William and Henry? Nil Einne (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought she said Philip Charles Arthur George. (As long as we're splitting hairs, she never was Princess Diana, and she wasn't Princess anything until shortly after she spoke those words.) —Tamfang (talk) 21:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sheesh! Talk about missing the point.  :)  --  JackofOz (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

First does anyone really think Roberts is going to allow any challenge given that it's (mostly) his mistake? Secondly as people have pointed out elsewhere, it definitely isn't the first of known mistake, there are probably more that we don't know about. Were these president's invalid? Third, I read this somewhere else and I'm pretty sure it's right. In most legal situations if someone says the wrong thing but it doesn't change the meaning it is unlikely to be invalid. P.S. No where in the wording does it say 'I (person's name)' so it seems to me that if the oath really, must be word for exact word, most people have taken a an invalid oath. Heck you could intrepret it to mean you have to say "I do solemnly swear (or affirm)" if you wanted to. Nil Einne (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama repeated the oath with Roberts at the White House according to this AP story. It also says that Coolidge and Arthur did the same. --JGGardiner (talk) 02:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

So, um, anyway. After all of the above speculation that the botched oath was meaningless, apparently the White House decided that it was not, and Obama retook it today. So much for the Ref Desk being a good crystal ball! Let us all occasionally remember how little we really know for sure! ;-) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 01:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The oath's being taken again and its being meaningless are not irreconcilable things. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed. They made it clear they didn't believe the first oath was invalid, but they were acting under "an abundance of caution". --  JackofOz (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I interpret their phrase "abundance of caution" to mean "shutting up the lunatic fringe". --Sean 13:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Uh huh. So four RDers—knowing more than the White House counsel! I'm sure ;-) --98.217.14.211 (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd bet on a team comprising User:Rockpocket, User:SteveBaker, User:Lambiam, and User:AnonMoos in a contest of wits against the likes of White House Counsel Harriet Myers any day! --Sean 18:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh! Edison (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In his place, I'd say "Let's start over, eh?" in the first place – or think of it later and wish I had. —Tamfang (talk) 06:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What is the name of the character
that appears in ? I know it's from Mad (magazine) which I only heard about through Wikipedia, but what is the name of the comic character creation?--Hotpotch&#39;d (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be Alfred E. Neuman. DuncanHill (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We learn something every day: I never noticed the "disquieting" asymmetry of his eyes. —Tamfang (talk) 07:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * He wouldn't worry about that. --- OtherDave (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Irish smile
What is it? deeptrivia (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A pattern on a tie, a song, or a cheesy poem. Do you have any sort of context that might help us out?  Maybe you're looking for something related to an Irish Makeover?  Dismas |(talk) 04:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps another synonym for a Glasgow/Chelsea smile? Nanonic (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Or maybe something to do with eyes. --  JackofOz (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ted Kennedy, who has had chemotherapy and radiation therapy to treat brain cancer, was said by Senator Orrin Hatch to have had an "Irish smile" on his face as he was hauled away after having a seizure at the post-inaugural luncheon. Hatch took the "Irish smile" to mean that "things are going to be all right." Did Hatch coin the phrase because Kennedy was Irish-American and was smiling? Or does it have an understood meaning? Edison (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Most web-based comments I've found related to Irish smiles seem to indicate a Duchenne smile - a "genuine" smile resulting from true happiness that involves not only the mouth muscles but the eyes as well. 152.16.59.190 (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

US Cabinet members
When does the term for the outgoing secretaries end, with their president, or upon confirmation of their successor?  Grsz  11  21:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * According to United States Cabinet, the successor does not take office until they take the oath. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  21:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That much I knew, but what about the Bush cabinet, when are they done? I know that the Senate is currently in session reviewing some nominees.  Grsz  11  22:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (edited)The Wikipedia article on Condoleezza Rice says she is still Secretary of State. Similarly, the Department of State website at the present time does not show that her term is over and does not list her as a former Secretary of State. The Wikipedia article on United States Secretary of State, in contrast, says she is "the former Secretary of State". Did her job end the minute Obama became President, must she submit a resignation, does Obama have to fire her, or does it end when her successor is confirmed? If she is still Secretary of State, she would still be 4th in succession to replace Obama. The U.S. Treasury Department website says that Henry Paulson, Bush's Treasury Secretary,  is still the secretary, making him still fifth in succession to the Presidency. The Senate appears to be in no great hurry to confirm Hillary Clinton as the new Secretary of State or Geithner as Treasury Secretary, although they are expected by most to be confirmed. Secretary of Defense Gates is a holdover from the Bush administration, chosen to continue by Obama, and apparently does not need to be reconfirmed by the Senate, so he should presently be 4th in succession to the Presidency, if the terms of the outgoing Secretaries of State and the Treasury are ended, and the new ones have not been confirmed. Apparently the cabinet secretaries of outgoing administrations in the past have continued in office until the were replaced in some cases. See Talk:United States Secretary of State. Edison (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This certainly is an unprecedented event - having to change so many articles, adding boxes and successions to some and removing them from others. I'm content with letting these things hammer themselves out over the coming days.  Grsz  11  22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are not all that many cabinet secretaries in the U.S. government. I suggest that when reliable sources like CNN or the New York Times report the predecessors are out and/or the new cabinet secretaries are in, or when the official websites of the departments or the White House report the departures from office of the Bush officials/confirmation and swearing in of the new appointments, then the articles should be revised and harmonized. Edison (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, they hold office until their successors are confirmed. But also, they normally resign effective noon on January 20, so they don't actually continue--if they didn't resign, they would, but they always resign.  So in between, their deputy generally stays on to keep things going until the new person is in place.  Tb (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Cabinet officers serve "at the pleasure" of the President. Upon taking office the all sign undated resignation letters which the President holds. If they really want to resign, they merely date the letter. If the President was them out, he dates the letter.

Gates is already Secretary of Defence, needs no further confirmation, and will stay as long as both he and Obama want him there.

The newbies take office after the Senate confirms them, at which time their predecessors' letters are accepted. Rice remains at State until Clinton replaces her, probably in about a week.

Ex-cabinet officers usually attend a last transition cabinet meeting as a resource for a smoother transition. B00P (talk) 09:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answers to a puzzling question. Presumably the outgoing President leaves the undated resignation letters, an exception to the usual practice of taking all official papers with them. Edison (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Church and State
As one of the "non believers" President Obama kindly acknowledged in his inaugural speech today (albeit as a bit of an afterthought), I was rather surprised at the amount of - for want of a better phrase - needless God-invoking there was at today's inauguration.

The USA has a separation of church and state, why therefore was there a Christian invocation including the Lord's Prayer as part of the official ceremony? Is this just another example of civil religion? Is the elements of the ceremony included at the discretion of the incoming President, so if he were not a Christian, would there be a different (or no) invocation? Historical examples or published opinions from Constitutional scholars would be welcome, thanks. Rockpock e  t  23:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it would be up to the President being inaugurated.  Grsz  11  23:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The state does not recognize nor enforce any religion. However, the people holding offices are real people with real religious views, and are free to hold and profess any views they wish.  Indeed, if Obama were prevented from expressing his religious views by the apparatus of the government, the government would be in violation of the "free exercise" clause.  Remember, the constitution forbids Congress from enacting laws (and by extension, the executive from enacting regulations) which either establish a state religion OR prevent individuals from participating in their own religion.  This refers to the government, and not to any individuals who hold jobs in the government.  In America there is always a conceptual distinction between the Office of the President and the man who holds that office.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  23:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The incoming president controls just about everything about the ceremony, and (at least within recent memory) personally chooses the person he wants to deliver the invocation - Obama's choice was controversial (and, in the result, rather disappointing). It's the president's choice about most of the religious elements of the inauguration: which (if any) book of scripture is used, whether or not to include the non-Constitutional "so help me God" at the end of the oath, etc. For some

history you may be interested in [a blacklisted site] (which in turn uses Wikipedia as a source) and. Political reality pretty much dictates that there will be an invocation - no president has been bold enough to scrap it. - Nunh-huh 00:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I study American constitutional law and have practiced in the area. My belief was that we need separation of church and state in the United States. When I recently researched faith-based organizations receiving government funds, I was surprised to learn that the First Amendment does not say separation of church and state. The Constitution forbids an estabished religion. "Establishment" was not defined. Several states had existing established religions. During the Warren years, the Court focused on Jefferson's statement to Baptists in Danbury that he preferred separation of church and state. Madison and Jefferson are often quoted. They were not the only framers. It is clear religious content for religious purposes was banned not to leave religion separate from the state but because everyone wanted their own particular denomination to flourish. Strangely, there was little discussion or debate concerning the wording.

The present Court has almost demolished the understanding of the Warren Court. Religion is accomodated as much as possible. Thus, the Court has upheld the Congressional chaplin's prayers and many displays of the Ten Commandments. The majority argues that much usage is traditional and historical. The area is very heated. The Court has acknowledged its failure to set proper standards that can be identified. The dissenters disagree. It is difficult to discern reasoned application in lower court decisions. The political party of the judge is a good identifier of how the court will rule. Once President Obama has a chance to appoint some justices, the present trend may be reversed.75Janice (talk) 03:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)75Janice


 * Thank you. I would note, in response to Jayron32, that there is a difference between preventing one expressing one's religious views, and not formally including religious elements in a legal ceremony related to one's (federal) job. There is no constitutional issue with Obama mentioning his God in his inaugural speech. Restricting him from doing so would obviously be in violation of the "free exercise" clause. My question was not about that right, but about references to a God in legal procedures. I note, for example, that some oaths of office (though not the Presidential one) legally require the person taking it to finish with "...I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God." I struggle to see how that is reconciled with "the state does not recognize nor enforce any religion".  Rockpock  e  t  00:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that source is either incorrect or whoever drafted the phrase is an idiot. It appears to permit one to affirm rather than take an oath (presumably to permit one to avoid the religious implication), but then requires that the person making the affirmation appeal to God anyway.  Rockpock  e  t  00:34, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "So help me God" is not part of the president's oath in the Constitution. It's been added by custom since at least 1881 (see http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-01-07-washington-oath_N.htm). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence (though not the Presidential one), above. Thanks for the link, though. Most informative and it led me to this lawsuit. Rockpock  e  t  02:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a .gov source for the theistic wording of the judge's oath. Rather than embracing Rockpocket's use of the word "idiot", I'll merely opine that it was composed in a time when the issue was less charged.  I'm reminded of an anecdote of my ex-wife when she worked for a Jewish charity.  One day a CETA worker, a Hispanic girl, was assigned to buy and send birthday cards for some donors, who in due course asked why they had received cards with shiny gold crosses.  To the girl, apparently, that's simply what birthday cards look like. —Tamfang (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So it would appear it is correct after all. I'm rather amazed, in todays litigious climate, that oath has not been changed as unconstitutional. I've been thinking about this further after watching the inauguration again. I think Michael Newdow does have a point. At the end of the oath Chief Justice Roberts - apparently in his constitutional role - clearly says "So help you God?" to which Obama repeats, "So help me God." If Obama had chosen to finish off with that unprompted, then good luck to him - thats his business. But the fact that the Justice prompted him as part of an oath of office (official or otherwise) does indeed seem questionable with regards to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Though a district court disagreed, of course, on the basis of Marsh v. Chambers.

Our country was founded by our founding fathers, who were christian, and upheld strong christian beliefs, and for that, may we all be thankful! "may god help obama and give him wisdom guiding our country!!!:) ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You might want to read Deism, then rethink that statement. AnyPerson (talk) 03:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure all of them weren't called Christina. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course they were. George Christina Washington, John Christina Adams.  You don't think those were men wearing wigs and high heeled shoes, do you?  AnyPerson (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The Eagles
According to our own List of best-selling albums worldwide article, Their Greatest Hits (1971–1975) by The Eagles is the third-best selling album of all time. Quite frankly, I don't understand how this came to pass. I'm not asking for opinions on the quality (or lack thereof) of The Eagles music, but perhaps someone could shed some light onto quite how this happened. Enduring popularity leading to steady sales over a number of years? A spectacular advertising campaign? Led Zeppelin hadn't released a good album in a while? Hammer Raccoon (talk) 23:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I seem to remember that at one point this album was close to being the one to remain on the Billboard top 500 the longest. The deal with greatest hits albums like these is that they tend to have staying power, and so sustain sales for a long time.  Original material albums tend to have swift sales when they are new, and then the sales drop off rapidly once the new album comes out.  Greatest hits albums tend to maintain steady sales for many years.  The Eagles album was certainly on the charts when I was in college (mid 1990's) despite being over 20 years old at that point. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  00:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The appeal for Greatest Hits albums is that people buy because it has all (or most) of the songs that they already know and love. There is no need to buy all the various albums that they came from individually.  Have I owned a copy, yes.  Do I have any interest in other material by The Eagles, not really.  And if you're interested in album chart records, check out Dark Side of the Moon.  Dismas |(talk) 03:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but lots of artists release Greatest Hits albums. Why is this one so successful and not the others?  This is purely speculation on my part (and I was too young to remember it myself) but one possible explanation is that the Eagles were a singles band. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Another point to realize is that The Eagles songs are a great example of Crossover (music). Their sound has found many fans of rock, pop and country styles. They have received airplay on many different themed radio stations throughout the years, resulting in more exposure and record sales. Several of the bands members: Don Henley,Glenn Frey and Joe Walsh have also had quite successful solo careers, resulting again in more potential attention to the group's previous works. cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 14:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This would be an excellent question for the Entertainment Desk. StuRat (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things I've just thought of myself. Some bands seem to have tons of compilation albums, whereas others (I'm thinking "Bob Marley and the Wailers'" Legend here) seem to have one pretty definitive release. Also perhaps this is just a perfect mix of "not bothered enough about their music to buy an album" and "like their music enough to get the greatest hits". These reasons might explain why there aren't any other bands with higher selling compilations (and if anything I'd have thought the Beatles would be ahead of the Eagles in the sales stakes). Thanks for the great answers so far everyone. (And cheers Dismas for pointing me to Dark Side of the Moon. I mean, I knew it was popular, but wow.) Hammer Raccoon (talk) 00:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)