Humanities desk
< December 11	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 13 >

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.

December 12

Contribution to Arab Nationalism

I know that Lebanon, Syria, Palestine and Egypt have people who have contributed to Arab Nationalism, but what about the North African countries, Mauritania, Djibouti, Somalia and the Gulf area? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.129.114 (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about this topic, but I do know how to click on every single Wikilinked name in an article. Doing so over at Arab nationalism brought up: Ahmed Ben Bella (Algerian), Habib Bourguiba (Tunisian) and, of course, Muammar al-Gaddafi (Libyan), but nobody from the countries you mentioned. Hopefully somebody can come up with a better answer, but, if not, you can always read through the Wikipedia articles for the countries in question, which often link to even more helpful things like List of Somalis. --Fullobeans (talk) 04:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early Arab nationalism was mainly motivated by resentments against European predominance and/or Ottoman rule, and was formulated by those who had enough exposure to European cultures to be influenced by 19th-century Romantic nationalism in Europe (so it's conspicuous that the two most prominent pre-WW2 theorizers, George Antonious and Michel Aflaq were both Christians, though the majority of Arabs are Muslims). Such areas as Mauritania were rather isolated from modernist intellectual currents within the Arab world (they had nothing corresponding to the American colleges in Beirut and Cairo, for example).

By the way, the Arabic language has two quite distinct and separate words for "nationalism": wataniyya وطنية and qawmiyya قومية . The Wataniyya version (which means loyalty to one's home region or country) has certainly achieved some modest practical successes, but in the case of Qawmiyya (i.e. pan-Arabism), the painful contrast between the grandiose broad sweeping claims and bombastic rhetoric usually associated with it vs. its obvious lack of specific concrete achievements was a significant destabilizing factor in middle-east politics for decades (though this now seems to have been mostly superseded by religious fundamentalism). AnonMoos (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Line of succession for President Elects?

If Barack Obama were to be unable to take over the Presidency on Inauguration Day (perhaps due to implication in the Blagojevich mess), who would be inaugurated instead? Does the standard line of succession apply even before the new Prez takes office? Garrett Albright (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See President-elect of the United States#President-elect succession. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha! I had read through United States presidential line of succession before posting, but didn't think to look on the President Elect article. Maybe a link to the latter article should be made on the former? Anyway, the article says…

In cases where a President has not been chosen by January 20 or the President-elect "fails to qualify", the Vice President-elect becomes Acting President on January 20 until there's a qualified President.

This implies that Joe Biden would become both Acting President and presumably would be sworn in as Vice President as well. But if Obama were unable to return to the office, who would be a "qualified President?" Would that mean Biden, or would it have to be someone explicitly elected to the presidency again (we'd have to have another election)? Garrett Albright (talk) 05:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such provisions are generally untested, and therefore ambiguous until they are tested. For example, the first VP to assume the office of President was John Tyler. Before he styled himself "President" and not "Acting President" it was somewhat ambiguous as to whether a Vice President who took over for a dead president actually became the new president, or served as the acting president until the next election. The current situation (the VP becomes the actual President) is largely because that's how Tyler personally handled it, and no one ultimately objected (there were objections, but everyone pretty much backed down). Thus, by precedent and not statute, the VP became the actual President. The Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution and later Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution clarified the situation by essentially confirming established practices.

As to what would happen in the specific case of the death of a President-elect, it depends on when and how he is no longer availible to serve.

If he is permanently unable to serve (dead) and such a situation occurs before the electoral college meets to vote, the college members would be free to choose whoever they wished. They would likely elect Biden, and also would likely elect whoever Biden chose as VP to replace him.
If the same situation happened after the electoral college has already elected the president, then the VP-elect becomes the President-elect(under the 20th ammendment), and upon assuming office, will nominate a new VP (under the 25th ammendment)
If the president is only temporarily incapacitated, then the VP is first sworn is as VP, and serves as "Acting President" until the President-elect either recovers, at which point he will be sworn in and assume his elected duties, or becomes clearly permanently incapacitated (dead), at which point the VP is sworn in as ACTUAL President, nominates a new VP, and yada yada.
If BOTH the president-elect and VP-elect are unable to assume the office, then the Speaker of the House becomes president. Since the House of Representatives convenes on January 3rd, and the President is not sworn in until January 20th, the House essentially gets to select the new President from among its own members. Presumably, they would elect a putative "speaker" on January 3rd, or shortly thereafter, who would be who the House wants to be President, and then elect a new speaker on January 20th (or shoryly thereafter) for who they really want to be Speaker.

Any situation, however, involving both the simultaneous loss of the President and Vice President is entirely untested and likely to cause problems. The most recent law of presidential succession, which provides that the Speaker is second in line after the VP, may be unconsitutional, since the constitution requires that all successors to the president must be "officers" of the government, a term used elsewhere in the Constitution to refer ONLY to memebers of the Executive branch (i.e. cabinet members). Since it has never come up, the courts have never had to rule on the constitutionality of this law, but if it did you can bet your boopy that it will become a major legal battle... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've wondered about that myself because it seems to me that allowing a member of the legislative branch to assume an office in the executive branch because of death (no less) seems to be a violation of seperation of the branches (which the Founding Fathers went out of their way to avoid). If this is a law passed by Congress rather than a Constitutional amendment, I think it would be unconstitutional, but obviously that question is left to the Supreme Court by tradition. 216.239.234.196 (talk) 13:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the speaker become President or Acting President? --Tango (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its entirely untested, so any answer would be speculation; however most sources that discuss it that I have read indicate that only the VP can become the actual President; any other official that assumes the office will only be "Acting President", even if both the VP and Pres are dead. Its really a semantic point, since the "Acting President" does not have any defined powers that would be different than the actual "President", or he may have no defined powers at all, and would just be a figure head. The constitution and applicable laws are quite vague on this. Or the Speaker could just do what John Tyler did, and demand to be sworn in and become President; it worked before and I don't see why it would be any different in that circumstance. Regardless, it would be a major "constitutional crisis", much like what you see happening in Canada right now... Expect a major mess if that ever happened. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 15:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Speaker would remain (Acting) President for the remainder of the current term, yes? So they are President for all extents and purposes, I guess. Usually as "Acting" position is only held until a permanent replacement can be found, but I don't think the US calls special elections to replace presidents. --Tango (talk) 15:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't kid yourself. if both Obama and Biden were dead, Nancy Pelosi, who is constitutionally qualified to serve as president, would be the president, with no "Acting" in the title. There would be no constitutional crisis at all. On the other hand, if either or both were expected to make a recovery, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates would be Acting President until superceded. Again, no cisis. B00P (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Secretary of State precedes the Secretary of Defense. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that particular case where the Speaker is from the same party as the deceased Pres and VP, you're probably right. Nobody important would complain about it and the crisis would be minimal. If the House is controlled by a different party to the presidency, then there would almost certainly be a legal challenge. Why would the party that is about to lose the presidency not try and prevent it? (Unless they decide to actually do what is in the country's best interests at a time of, what is likely to be, a national crisis, but who seriously expects that?) --Tango (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, anybody can claim a legal challenge, even if they are in the minority party. I would not expect the situation to go smoothly. I would expect a formal legal challenge to come from somebody, and for the Supreme Court to expedite the case and to make a ruling in short order. They may very well hold that the law is consitutional, and that the Speaker could become the actual President. But there are no assurances that they will reach either of those decisions, since the statutory guidance is so ambiguous. Since the courts cannot rule on a point of law if there is no legal case, the law stands, but there is a real possibility that someone may challenge it, should the provisions of the law be acted upon. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The minority party could challenge, but would they really care that much if the new president if the Speaker from the other party or a cabinet secretary from that same party? Either way, they don't get a presidency. If the House is controlled by a different party to the presidency, they the Supreme Court would be deciding what party the new president comes from, which is a much bigger deal and you can expect a far more thorough challenge. --Tango (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humlebaek landing 1700- inconsistent Wiki entries?

Hi,

Charles XII landed with an Anglo-Dutch-Swedish force on Zealand at Humlebaek in 1700.

In the Swedish Wiki, it says with 4300 men. In the English Wiki, with 8000 men. Both surely cannot be true. Where are the sources for this information, I would like to know as much as possible about the landing.

Thank you, Julian Roche —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Roche (talk • contribs) 06:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your best bet is to raise these concerns on the talk-page of the entry that is correct. Or 'be bold' and make the changes yourself. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Talk page route suggested above is good. Another move you can make: go into the article's History in both language versions, find which editor wrote the text in question, and leave a message on that editor's Talk page with a link to your query on the article's Talk page, and check for responses. (If you need help with this, please provide the link to the page; I couldn't find it.) If you get no response, see if there's a Wikiproject related to the topic where you can canvass support. I would, however, advise against changing the page content until and unless you have a verifiable version from a citable source, and be sure to note it in the edit summary (and on the Talk page too, for others to follow up in either or other languages as may be necessary). --Deborahjay (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles in different languages are usually not translations. They are written independently. Charles XII of Sweden#Early Campaigns says: "Leading a force of 8,000 and 43 ships in an invasion of Zealand, ...". Humlebæk or a date is not mentioned. It is about the total force attacking Zealand during July and August. sv:Karl XII#Danmark says 4300 men landed at Humlebæk on 25 July 1700. I don't see an inconsistency. Are you referring to another English article? The sources I examined (mostly in Danish) vary a little on the exact numbers but agree that only a part of the total forces landed at Humlebæk on the first day. By the way, I live in Humlebæk! PrimeHunter (talk) 22:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberation of the Netherlands in WWII - by whom?

I am having difficulties finding information on the liberation of the Netherlands in WWII. Was Market Garden the operation or was that just the start? Did the troops simply move on into Germany or did some stay behind? And who then, and did they do any more iberating? And what about the south (Limburg)? Which troops marched in there? In other words, simply put, who liberated the Netherlands and when? Of course there will be no simple answer to this, but I am mainly trying to get some idea of how many British, Canadians, Americans, Poles and even Moroccans and Mexicans (it seems) were involved. DirkvdM (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find Netherlands in the Second World War#The final year yet? From a quick reading, some parts of the south were liberated following Operation Market Garden, but the bulk of the country was later liberated from the east by the Canadians. Some areas were not liberated until the final German surrender. DuncanHill (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have read that section and looked at Market Garden and some more as well, but those don't fully answer my questions. Oh, I now see that 'Wesel and Rees' (towards the end of 'the final year') is a link to Operation Plunder. But that states that those were UK and US forces, whilst the text in 'the final year' claims they were Canadian. Or do I misread that? And still, the story is qualitative, not quantitative. I would specifically like to know how many soldiers were involved in the various operations, and from which armies. There are several separate bits of info, but no complete overview, as there is for many other battles. DirkvdM (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian forces are often lumped in with the British army in the literature. Apparently, they made quite a lasting impression - I occasionally see mentions of warm memories and feelings harbored by the Dutch even now (at least in Canadian newspapers). (P.S. "Iberating" would have taken place further south.) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Netherland were liberated by Polish forces surving under the command of allied forces UK,USA,Canada and so they were part of armies of these countries but in fact The Netherlands and Denmark were liberated by Polish armed forces ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Army_in_the_West read here ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.205.25.63 (talk) 19:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_1st_Armoured_Division#Belgium_and_the_Netherlands read this one as well--84.205.25.63 (talk) 19:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't doubt that some of the troops liberating the Netherlands were probably Polish, a great many were Canadian, and some British. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Humphrey

Anyone heard of an American child actor named Thomas Humphrey, or know anything about him? This picture from the Deutschen Bundesarchiv shows a little boy that's apparently such an actor in Hollywood, although (1) the caption is in German, so I can't be sure of its meaning, and (2) there's no article on such a person, either in English or in German. Nyttend (talk) 23:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The caption just says: "Thomas Humphrey, the new Hollywood movie star, refreshes himself with a bit of ice cream after work." Well, I think Sahnetüten is actually some kind of whipped cream in a cone, but whatever it is, it doesn't help answer your question. --Fullobeans (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters, but I believe that should be "Hollywood's youngest movie star." I too am drawing a blank in online searching, though a look at the list in 1931 in film suggests that we may be dealing with a bit player in something like The Champ or City Lights, or perhaps one of the Cagney gangster films. That is, if he didn't happen to be an Our Gang wannabe or in some other of the many shorts being cranked out at the time. "Filmstar" indeed, harrumph! Deor (talk) 14:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

imdb has no record of a Thomas Humphrey as an actor. There is a Tom Humphrey who has been an art director since 1998, a Tommy Humphreys with one role in 2000, and a Tom Humphrey with one uncredited role in 1956. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]