Humanities desk
< August 19	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 21 >

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

August 20

US Presidents and Royal Caricature

How many US presidents have been caricatured as a king or emperor such as Alexander Jackson? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.193.163.81 (talk) 03:52, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: you probably meant to refer to King Andrew the First —2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 04:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Presidents who assert themselves have not infrequently been caricatured as "tyrants". Lincoln, for one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would hazard a guess that - since the advent of political cartoons -most presidents have been portrayed that way at least once. Here is one of Teddy Roosevelt. Apologies for the annoying ad on the side. I tried finding one without it but was unsuccessful. MarnetteD|Talk 18:13, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do an image search for "president caricature king". The first few hits include Obama, Jackson, LBJ, and Trump. Eventually they'll all be portrayed with crowns once in a while. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:04, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That could depend on their effectiveness, or at least their impact. I looked for that kind of cartoon for the three saps who preceded Lincoln and nothing turned up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have at least one by Thomas Nast of Andrew Johnson in the William H. Seward article.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:53, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability?

Moved to: talk:Hanna Kim

Medieval year-ends

Geoffrey of Monmouth "appears to have died between 25 December 1154 and 24 December 1155". If the possible dates of death were a month later, would we say "25 January 1154 and 24 January 1155", or would we say "25 January 1155 and 24 January 1156"? I'm aware of the potential for confusion in the early modern period (see Julian calendar#New Year's Day and Old Style and New Style dates#Differences in the start of the year), but I don't know how medieval end-of-year dates are generally treated in the 21st century. I've seen references to George Washington being born in February 1731/32, but I've never seen medieval events with the double year, so I'm unclear whether pre-late-March dates are always treated as being in the new year or the old. Nyttend backup (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused about the question; it looks like the article gives a 1-year range (not 1-month range) for the death dates of Geoffrey: Between Christmas of 1154 and Christmas Eve of 1155. Since it's a 1-year gap, we would cross New Years day regardless of when it occurred at that time and place. --Jayron 32 14:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval dates are not like George Washington's birth year(s), because there was only the Julian calendar back then (this comes up fairly often on the reference desk, but there's no reason to adjust the dates, unless you're trying to calibrate a time machine). As you mentioned, confusion sometimes arises from the different start date for the year, but in that case, the date is always converted to our modern idea of the year (i.e. if a medieval author says 25 January 1155, we convert that to 25 January 1156, if that person's calendar started in March or whenever). Sometimes a range of dates is given for someone's death because no one ever recorded the date of death, or if they did, it hasn't survived. For Geoffrey of Monmouth, the DNB, the source for the dates in the Wikipedia article, elaborates a little bit: "He is usually held to have died between 25 December 1154 and 24 December 1155 when his presumed successor, Richard, took office (although doubts have been cast upon the date of Richard's episcopate)." I'm not sure what that means specifically, but I assume it must be that there is a document somewhere dated 25 December 1154 in which Geoffrey is mentioned as still living, and then Richard is recorded taking office on 24 December 1155 (if we ignore the doubts about the date), which means Godfrey must have died sometime in between. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the date is always converted to our modern idea of the year" Okay, that's what I was wondering. So the ambiguous-year thing only applies in England between 1582 and 1750? Jayron, that example was convenient because if I moved up the dates a month, both of them would have had the ambiguity, were the situation as I imagined; if this were the 1650s, you'd need year clarification on both dates, so I wanted to know if the same were true for the 1150s. Nyttend backup (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've got it now. Sorry I was confused. Wikipedia has an article on Dual dating, AFAIK, Britain and its Empire were among the only European nations that had two different adoption dates; that is they moved to January 1 as New Years Day at a different time then when they adopted the Gregorian Calendar. Other nations made the change simultaneously. --Jayron 32 16:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But our article says otherwise Calendar (New Style) Act 1750 changed both the year end and to the Gregorian calendar in England and colonies. And notes Scotland had changed to Jan 1 already in 1600. Other countries were often more complex with, for instance, Catholic provinces/principalities switching in the 1580s and Protestant ones around 1700. New Year#Current readoptions of January 1 and Adoption of the Gregorian calendar#Timeline seem to show many European countries that switched New Year's and Julian/Gregorian in different years. Rmhermen (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying corruption in tendering process

This is how a particular boss runs a dept where procurement of information technology related service/goods/items/material without enlisting suppliers in a transparent way by website advertisement or newspaper advertisement but by calling limited tender among arbitrary selected vendors.In a South Asian Commonwealth countrys' full government company generating thermal power I think this is corrupt practice.So my question is is this activity corrupt or not corrupt specially when in a public notice of the company published in its website signed by the companys director it reads that material and services will be procured through e tender and interested bidders are directed to buy DSC certificate for participating in etendering. However in a power plant of this company without doing any etender this procurement is taking place through this corrupted limited tendering process.My question is the existing practice is okay or not that is it corrupt or not because all South Asian countries belonging to the Commonwealth have some vigilance rules regulations.The way he is conducting business is corruption or not .This is my question.I don't think that I have asked legal question so please clear my doubt some helpful knowledgable wikipedian.Wrogh456 (talk) 14:07, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an appropriate question for us to answer. Even if we knew the details, which we don't/can't, corruption is a legal charge and we cannot advise people on legal situations. You would need to consult a lawyer, or perhaps some kind of advocacy group. Matt Deres (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I not asking how to frame charges i am just asking if the standard precodure has been compromised corrupted and sabotaged or not that the process does seem to point to larger organised thft or corruption racket within the organisation or not not asking for specific charges i just want that you shed light on the fact or my doubt if in a government organisation that is a company generating thermal power in a Commonwealth country of South Asia if this is happening is this corrupt practice and if this practice points to iceberg of corruption where a ring consisting of high officials constitute organised racket to systemetically loot money through cut money because the tendering process becomes noncompetetitive nontransparent and invalid because all commonwealth countries have similar rules in this area.I am not asking for actvism but soliciting for your knowledge to discern if this is widespread corruption or corrupt practice or it is my delusional belief.Wrogh456 (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You would need to talk to a lawyer who's an expert in that area of law in the region you're talking about. No one here is qualified to do that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any states that extend the felony voting rule a little into the past?

Or would they all just let any serial killer on "infinite bail" cast a non-provisional ballot from when absentee voting opens till seconds before their first felony conviction, if before close of absentee voting? (and other blocks like mental health, ID and non-citizen not applying). If the defendant's healthy enough to go in person couldn't they deny an absentee ballot while there's still a possibility of the trial ending early enough to go in person? (in the improbable event of acquittal)

If they really wanted felons to not vote they could make anyone charged with felonies take provisional ballots if there's a chance of conviction and removing their vote before results are final (December?) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC) if they're convicted. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your question; if I read it correctly regarding making rules retroactive, generally ex post facto laws are not legal in the U.S., so a law could not retroactively remove a vote once it has been cast. --Jayron 32 16:35, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ex post facto to have a law that says all persons committing felonies after [future date] can have votes before felony conviction but after what they were convicted of are disqualified if results aren't final yet? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your reasoning here. If their vote was case on November 4, and they were convicted on November 5, then they were NOT a felon on November 4. It was a legal vote on that date. Time machines are still not a thing, yet. --Jayron 32 13:58, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how you could revoke someone's right to vote based on "a chance of conviction." That would be a violation of the presumption of innocence. Be that as it may, every state likely has its own rules about such things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:57, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, they vote, if they're acquitted it counts, if they're convicted of a felony it isn't counted. If it's too late to remove the vote then it counted. Does anywhere do that? Still has to be a method that isn't significantly more likely for their choice to be disclosed than if they were taken to the booth or whatever they usually use though (probably not practical for high escape risk, unbailable defendants). And of course if he's not convicted before the results are final they can't remove his vote. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, nobody does that. For two seconds, just think of the logistics and hassle involved in facilitating that. Not every random thought that pops into your head requires the services of a reference desk. Matt Deres (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only way I could imagine that coming into play is if an election is very close and a recount and validation is required. Even so, if the guy was not a convicted felon at the time he cast his vote, I don't see how they could take it away from him. But to know for sure, the OP would need to review the election laws for each of the 50 states. Once he's done that, he could report back to us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At least in my state (Virginia) you can get an absentee ballot if confined in jail but not convicted of a felony. But a ballot once cast is cast, even if the person dies or is convicted of a felony after casting it but before Election Day.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do I understand correctly that SMW is asking whether any place does not count the vote of someone who is convicted after they vote but before the election day? If so while I agree that it would be helpful if SMW doesn't ask any random thing that pops into their head and I'm not convinced anyone does this mostly because Felony disenfranchisement is relatively rare outside the US and a few other places, especially for those not in prison. But I'm also not convinced the general concept is unthinkable as suggested. To work, it would require a trustworthy and reputable agency to be in charge of elections and some degree of good cooperation between agencies. Having a national ID number combined with these would likely help reduce the apparently questionable way disenfranchisement seems to sometimes be carried out in the US where a large number of can be incorrectly removed by private agencies. But generally any early voting especially postal voting must be checked against some list of voters at some stage and it doesn't seem that surprising if this only happens on election day. (Double envelopes etc can be used if ballot secrecy concerns arise.) For example in NZ, early votes cast are not counted if the person dies before election day [1] [2]. Obviously this assumes the person's death has been reported etc. Votes cast on election day are counted even if the person dies after voting regardless of it's before the end of the voting period. I'm not completely sure how this is implemented but I would suspect their name is annotated on the electoral rolls and when they it comes time to count the early votes they are checked against the roll and it's found that this persons is effectively no longer on the roll. Although NZ does generally enforce ballot secrecy, it is also possible to track votes even those cast in polling places if needed, this is used to remove the votes of those who voted twice for example [3]. (I think this is something that's fairly rare. As with the other things I mentioned, it requires some degree of confidence that whoever is in charge of the elections isn't going to use it to compromise ballot secrecy.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it requires a speed and organization of government we don't usually see in the US, even if you don't have a rule of legal when cast, legal in law.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eleonor Ann Ram, later Mrs Archibald Campbell

Which Archibald Campbell is referred to in the title of the above portrait? On the reverse, he is named as "Archibald James Campbell". It was painted in 1837, likely in or near Bath, England. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't she Eleanor, not Eleonor? DuncanHill (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem to be "Eleanor". Some more clues here: they were married in 1849 in St George's Hanover Square Church, she died in 1879. Here, however is the announcement of their wedding in The Gentleman's Magazine, saying it was at St Peter's Church, Eaton Square. That announcement tell us he was the "only son of the late Major-General Archibald Campbell C.B. of Inverneil, Arguilshire". That can only be Archibald Campbell (British Army officer, born 1774)~~, who is interred at Westminster Abbey~~. As far as I can tell, we don't have an article about the younger Archibald, and I haven't found anything about him. (He's also not the only son; perhaps that meant only living son. Per this history, the older Archibald had two sons and three daughters.) Hope this helps, › Mortee _talk 18:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the one in Westminster Abbey is Archibald Campbell (British Army officer, born 1739), a different chap entirely. The one I linked to at the end must be a different Archibald also, since he died in 1843, whereas the officer I linked to first died in 1838... Sorry, I'm getting very mixed up between far too many Archibald Campbells now. If no-one else solves it I'll have make a fresh attempt tomorrow. › Mortee _talk 18:16, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The one in Westminster Abbey (1739-1791) had no children. - Nunh-huh 15:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone. I've linked to this discussion from the image's page on Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you interested only in the husband, or in further identifying her? Burke's Landed Gentry says: "Abel Ram, Esq. of Ramsfort, high sheriff of the co. Wexford 1829, m. 19 Dec. 1818, Eleanor-Sarah Knapp, and d. 14 Jan. 1832, leaving an only son, Stephen, now of Ramsfort, and a dau. Eleanor-Anne, m. 1849, to Archibald James Campbell, Esq." So Eleanor's father Abel Ram was the son of Stephen Ram (d. 1821) and Lady Charlotte Stopford, 6th daughter of James, 1st Earl of Courtown. Stephen Ram, Eleanor's grandfather, was MP for Gorey 1789. - Nunh-huh 18:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very interested in her too, thank you - though my reason for asking was in case one of the Archibald Campbell articles we had was about her husband, so I could use the picture there - we clearly have no article about her. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the late medieval period, the heirs of the Earls of Argyll, the hereditary chiefs of Clan Campbell, were alternately called either Archibald (a false Anglicization of Gilleasbaig or Gilleasbuig, after Gilleasbaig of Menstrie, the founder of the clan), or Colin (after Gilleasbaig's son Cailean Mór d. 1296), and thereafter Colin or Archibald were favoured names for any boy with the surname Campbell - I think we have an even bigger list of illustrious Colin Campbells. Alansplodge (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone figure out the answer to this question yet?KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Thomas Hawker

Here is another one from the same artist; "Sir Thomas Hawker... wearing staff uniform, his scarlet coat with gold epaulettes, his black collar with gold lace, gold waist-sash, the belt plate with royal cipher VR". Painted 1821. It's not Thomas Hawker. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't tried so hard with this one, but I assume it's the Thomas Hawker mentioned here, here, here and here, for whom we do not have an article. › Mortee _talk 14:29, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do now, albeit a sparse one; Thomas Hawker (British Army officer). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marvellous! › Mortee _talk 16:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more snippets to the Hawker article, however there is an error in the image caption. The final text which says "the belt plate with royal cipher VR" cannot be right, the king in 1821 was George IV of the United Kingdom. Victoria didn't accede until 1937. George's monogram looks like this or this. Alansplodge (talk) 17:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1837. AnonMoos (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! Alansplodge (talk) 09:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]