Humanities desk
< October 31	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 2 >

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.

November 1

United Kingdom embassy not in commonwealth nations

Why United Kingdom doesn't have their embassy in former colonies like Maldives, Somalia, Dominica, Bahamas, Grenada, St. Kitts and Nevis, Lesotho, Kiribati, Nauru, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.236 (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Diplomatic missions between Commonwealth countries are designated as High Commissions rather than embassies." from our article. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Every nation does not necessarily maintain an embassy with every other nation in the world. In many cases, diplomatic missions are maintained by proxy with a nearby embassy. For example, the UK's diplomatic commissioner for the Bahamas resides in Kingston, Jamaica. Negotiations between the UK and the Bahamas can thus be initiated in Kingston, or in London, where the Bahamas does maintain an Embassy. See List of diplomatic missions in The Bahamas and List of diplomatic missions in the United Kingdom. --Jayron32 04:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given the security situation in Somalia for the past two decades, I doubt any Western country has a resident Embassy there these days. The other countries mentioned are small island states, and in these days of budget restraints, it's not feasible to open an Embassy in every country, given relations are very limited, and the local population is often extremely small. --Xuxl (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a film

I'm looking for the title of an old film which AFAI can remember has some similarities with In Time (film). The protagonist is a young male, who through hard work and a considerable amount of luck gains a lot of time. His mother runs a shop and is facing bankruptcy and death. To save his mother he decides to travel to a mysterious place (at the end of some road) to speak with some powerful people in order to give his time to his mother. The guy who talks with him says that this request is unusual (most come to ask for more time = money), and that he will grant it. However a mutual girlfriend convinces the protagonist to change his mind. In the end he is present at his mother's funeral and gives a valuable necklace to two somewhat dimwitted friends, while he and the woman go away. That's all I can remember. Much obliged. Flamarande (talk) 04:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subnational entities sharing names with their countries

How many subnational entities share their names with their countries? I'm only interested in first-level subdivisions (whether administrative subdivisions of unitary states or autonomous components of federal states), such as Île-de-France, the State of Mexico, and Western/South Australia. Nyttend (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina is one of the two constituent "entities" of Bosnia and Herzegovina (the other being Republika Srpska). Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Finland Proper has given its name to the whole of Finland. It is one of the historic provinces of Finland, now an administrative region.--Rallette (talk) 08:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And then there's Schwyz.--Rallette (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg. Not sure whether Buganda would count. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Four levels, in that case - Luxembourg (city), in Luxembourg (canton), in Luxembourg (district), in Luxembourg... Shimgray | talk | 18:34, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does tiny Luxembourg need four levels of localities? Is there a separate government at each level or are they just administrative divisions? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine used to be known semi-formally as Little Russia, back when it was a part of Russia. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monaco-Ville, sometimes called simply Monaco, is an administrative division of the nation of Monaco.

A little dubious, but the region Holland (now divided into North Holland and South Holland) is smaller than Holland-as-a-name-for-the-Netherlands. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Panamá Province in Panama. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

... and Djibouti. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And Guatemala Department. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At a stretch, Svealand and Bohemia (Čechy in Czech). The land of Svea, whence Svea rike, Sverige, and Sweden, is not today an administrative division except as the judicial district of the Svea Court of Appeal. Since 1973, HM the King is no longer Sveriges, Götes och Vendes Konung but simply Sveriges Konung - the Sverige in the old title meant Svealand, or "Sweden Proper". As for the Czech name of Bohemia, Čechy is the toponym, Česka in Česka Republika is an adjective.--Rallette (talk) 11:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the adjective "český" can mean either "Czech" or "Bohemian," a fact that has caused confusion on occasion. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An asterisk for District of Columbia, as "Columbia" is an alternate name for "USA". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- A couple of clarifications, which I would have made last night if I'd not been so sleepy — (1) Only interested in current situations, so I'm not looking for Little Russia; (2) Only interested in official names, so not interested in Holland or DC. Thanks for everything so far; do we know of others? Nyttend (talk) 12:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hmm? District of Columbia is the "official name" of the District of Columbia. --Trovatore (talk) 01:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)~~[reply]

Never mind; I see what you mean. I thought you were thinking the official name was Washington, which it's not. But what you meant was that Columbia is not the official name of the US, and that's certainly true. --Trovatore (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you extend it to countries taking their name from a city, then you can add Tunisia (Tunis), Algeria (Alger), and Morocco (from Marrakech). Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this counts, but São Tomé and Príncipe is divided into two provinces whose names you can probably guess. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we're going down that road, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland clearly takes its name from Northern Ireland.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poland has the voivodeships Greater Poland and Lesser Poland. --Wrongfilter (talk) 15:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ancient port known to the Romans as Portus Cale gave its name first to the present-day city of Porto on the same site and to the County of Portugal, which later gave its name to the present-day country. Likewise, per Name of Canada, the native name Canada first applied to the area around present-day Quebec City, then to Canada, New France—the present-day province of Quebec, later to what are now Quebec and Ontario (the erstwhile Province of Canada, and finally to the entire country that carries the name today. Marco polo (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are several more. Austria takes its name from the March of Austria, a region that corresponds roughly to the present-day Austrian states of Upper Austria and Lower Austria. Panama takes its name from Panama City (lying within Panamá Province), Belize from Belize City (the capital of Belize District), the Dominican Republic from Santo Domingo (until recently the capital of Santo Domingo Province. Marco polo (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico has State of Mexico. Belize has Belize District. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An administrative division of Tonga (meaning "South") is called Tongatapu (meaning "Sacred South"). See also Table of administrative divisions by country. --Theurgist (talk) 01:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino has the City of San Marino as one of its municipalities (castelli). Interesingly, its not even the country's most populous. Neutrality^talk 19:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Countries where pay-first sit-down restaurants are the norm

In the United States, with the exception of buffet-style places like Golden Corral, Old Country Buffet etc. (except every Chinese buffet I've ever been to where I paid at the end of the meal), at sit-down restaurants (by that colloquial term, I exclude fast food restaurants despite the literal fact that some people do sit down there), it's pretty much universal that you pay at the end of your meal. I've never seen a non-buffet, non-fast food restaurant where you sit down, look at the menu, pick and pay for your food, then eat it and, if the service was good, leave a tip. Is there anywhere in the world where this is the norm? 20.137.18.53 (talk) 12:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Bolivia, and several other Latin American countries as well, it is quite standard that you approach a counter, pay for what you want (often set menus for lunch) and get a small paper ticket. The ticket is then given to a waiter who brings your food to your table. Tipping in these places is not very standard. Fancier places will have the eat first, pay later policy. --Soman (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's usual in British pubs that serve food (including full sit-down meals). While pubs are not officially restaurants (some British pubs have attached restaurants with the normal pay-after-eating procedure, and actual restaurants may include a bar theoretically available to non-diners), they may (or may not) fall into the same conceptual category for your purposes.

In a British pub, rather than offer a monetary tip (in connection with a meal or otherwise) the more usual custom - especially if one is a "regular" rather than a one-time visitor - is to invite the barman/maid (who is notionally or actually a friend rather than just a server), while ordering drinks etc, if he/she will "have one yourself," often by adding ". . . and one for yourself?" to one's order. This allows them to add the price of a reasonable drink (not, say, a treble whisky!) to the tariff and then either actually pour and drink it then and there, say they'll have it later (implying when less busy or after closing time) and do so, or simply take the sum in cash after closing (in a busy establishment staff may use beer-bottle caps or similar tokens to keep track of how much they're owed by the till at the end of the session).

If one wanted to tip someone (X) who brought the meal to the table, etc, but was not serving at the bar, one might similarly ask the bar person to "get one in for X". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.254 (talk) 12:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't think that inviting bar staff to have a drink is "usual custom" in the UK. It may be done occasionally (mostly, in my experience, by somewhat pompous older men), but it's no more "usual" than leaving a tip on the table or adding something to the total on the chip & pin machine. Most bar staff work too hard to have time for a drink, and have to stay sober, just as much as people working in any other job. Pubs these days usually offer you the choice of paying either when you order, or after you have eaten. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My "usual" was intended to refer more to the practice of paying on ordering the meal, which is in my own experience (fairly wide, as a member of CAMRA and a sometime resident in or visitor to many different parts of the UK, and a barman myself in a few of them) more frequent than paying after eating, though as I attempted to convey paranthetically, summarising a gamut of different styles of establishment, paying afterwards may also be encountered.

As regards tipping bar staff and others by offering a notional drink (which as I tried to explain may often be taken as cash rather than in actual (alcoholic or soft) liquid form, though I regularly experience the latter) again this is customary behaviour by regulars in the majority of pubs I frequent, though of course it's not something one does at every order, or even on every visit. Perhaps, Ghmyrtle, we tend to frequent different styles of pub. I will cheerfully admit to being a man, old, and pompous, although I would prefer the term "courteous." {the poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.254 (talk) 13:40, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Man, old, pompous....... yup, that's me too. ;-) Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to summarise the foregoing: in pubs in the UK and Ireland, you order and pay for your meal at the bar, then go and sit down - the meal is usually brought to you. Tipping is not obligatory, but you can leave coins on the table or ask the staff if they'd like a drink. Alansplodge (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose in the end this comes down to your definition of fast food. I've been to plenty of places in the US — not "fast food" but not very fancy — where you pay at the register, take a ticket, wait for it to be brought to you (or for them to call out a number). Tipping not expected ("but always welcome!"). There are lots of Mexican places where this is quite common, just as an example. Is it fast food? Sure, I suppose, by definition — even if the food is pretty much exactly the same as what you'd get in another Mexican place down the road, where they have waiters that bring you the food and you pay afterwards. So I guess I'm sort of concluding that the definition of "fast food" is in part related to the order in which one pays. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the fast-food/non-fast-food distinction is in error. From a restaurant's point of view, if you are going to place an order for some food and what you order is all you will get, ask for the money up front. If you are going to possibly extend your order with more items such as drinks or desserts, ask for money when the meal is done. Adding to this, if you tend to get customers who run off without paying, ask for money up front (in the U.S., you can't simply ignore them or they will sue). If you have a captive group of customers, such as a resort where it is a pain to go elsewhere, you can hold the bill until the customers are getting ready to leave. That makes me think of a hotel I stayed at where all meals were just added to the tab and I paid when I checked out. -- kainaw ™ 19:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't understand what you meant by "you can't simply ignore them or they will sue". Who will sue whom, and for what cause ? StuRat (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every couple years some restaurant chain in the U.S. is sued because they refused to serve some (fill in the oppressed minority here) people. -- kainaw ™ 00:17, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aah! I initially read you as meaning that some people will order food, eat it, run off without paying, and then sue the restaurant! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.254 (talk) 14:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My brother only gets a half hour for lunch, which is darned near impossible at most restaurants. He goes to Pizza Hut, which has a pizza buffet at lunch. He walks right in, grabs a slice and starts eating. They usually get around to giving him the bill while he's there (which he then pays immediately to the waitress), but, if not, he just walks out without paying. Note that if he had to wait in any type of line to pay (either before or after), lunch would go over the time limit. StuRat (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't he go up to the counter to settle his bill? APL (talk) 02:42, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because then he would have to wait in a long line and be late. StuRat (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume very common passive-aggressive behavior. Instead of complaining to his boss, he takes out his frustration over a short lunch on strangers at Pizza Hut. -- kainaw ™ 02:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's a good idea to publish a statement on the internet that your brother routinely steals pizza... If he doesn't have time to wait for them to bring the bill, he could just leave the cash on the table (it sounds like he goes there quite often, so presumably he knows how much it is). Alternatively, if he doesn't have time to eat in a restaurant he could try not eating in a restaurant. He could bring a packed lunch from home, he could go to a sandwich bar, he could go to a fast-food vendor, etc.. A short lunch break is not a good excuse for stealing your lunch. --Tango (talk) 12:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So called "fast food" places like McDonald's tend to be slower, due to long lines at lunchtime. That's why he likes Pizza Hut's pizza buffet, no need to wait in a long line (if they bring him the bill and collect at the table in a timely manner) or wait for food to be prepared. StuRat (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are things really that bad during lunch hour in the US? 30 minutes isn't that long but from my experience is more then doable even if you have to go somewhere. It seems to me if it takes him 8 minutes to and back from the place and 8 minutes to eat, he still has 14 minutes to que up to order, pay and receive his order. I'm surprised that it routinely takes more than 14 minutes at all fast food places in the US even during lunch hour. If it takes more then 8 minutes to walk there and back (please don't tell me he's driving), then even more reason to bring a packed lunch. Even ignoring the ethics, it seems to me to be a bad idea to routinely steal food from the same outlet, even if it's during a lunch hour rush there's a fair chance ultimately someone will notice and if he goes there all the time, tracking him down isn't going to be too hard. Of course as others have suggested, there are other options then bring a packed lunch and find a place that works better, like negotiating a longer lunch break or even trying to work out a deal with the Pizza Hut where he pays for the meals at some other time or way. I do agree with Tango on another point and this reminds me of someone else on the RD, remember it's one thing to reveal details about yourself, another to reveal details about others, are you sure your brother would be happy with you telling everyone on the internet he routinely steals food? Don't assume you aren't identifable just because you use a pseudonym. Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's driving. You have to understand that few people have a restaurant in walking distance here (partly because restaurants tend to clump together, probably due to zoning laws). He would ride his bike, but there's no way he could do that in time. As for the pizza police rappelling out of their black helicopters and smashing through his windows, that's a risk he'll just have to take. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:37, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to make the same points as Tango. A packed lunch would also be healthier and less stressful. Alternatively, he could speak to the other employees, or his trade union (if he has one) about jointly approaching the boss about negotiating a change to the working conditions. If there's give and take in the suggestion, most employers would be pleased to have happier staff, who'll work better and more productively, not slag off their business to friends and won't need expensive/inconvenient replacement every so often. --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably when they get round to bringing him the bill for last week's pizza, he will cheerfully pay them. Card Zero (talk) 18:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You see it a lot in asian restaurants/diners (particularly Chinese, Japanese, Korean). I noticed it when I lived in Sydney, and even more so now I am living in Singapore. I went to places like that in China and Japan too. Ballchef (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Visits in the Year before an Election in the US?

Are there records of how many times a presidential candidate has visited a state in the year before an election for the past several elections? --CGPGrey (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Vote had a Campaign Tracker listing visits during the 2008 campaign. They also do an ongoing Presidential Tracker. I'm not aware of a list of visits for the year prior to an election. Dalliance (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of all US cities with a population over 10,000?

Is there a list of all US cities with a population over 10,000? Wikipedia only lists over 100,000 and I can't find the answer on the census site. --CGPGrey (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wilipedia's List of lists of settlements in the United States might help, but it is not quite what you asked for. Dbfirs 16:05, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such a list would be unweildy; there would be thousands of settlements whose population exceeded 10,000 people. --Jayron32 17:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unwieldiness is a relative concept. One could argue having a collection of almost 4 million articles on notable subjects (and that's just in one language) is out of the question because it would be impossibly unwieldy. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the OP could simply start at Category:Populated places in the United States and go through each article individually and find the ones with more than 10,000 people. I certainly would find such an endeavour "unweildy", but since you Jack do not, perhaps you Jack could do this for the OP? --Jayron32 19:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be unwieldy, but that's not the same as generating a list automatically, which could surely be done easily with access to the database and some scripts. (Easiness is, of course, also a relative concept.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=471319 for old data.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the info on the census bureau site either, but printed versions of the World Almanac and Book of Facts, among other such reference works, have long featured such a list - taken from Census Bureau data. Textorus (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you'll have to go into the raw data, download each state individually and pick them out. Or just e-mail the census and ask if they have it all in a single file. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See https://ask.census.gov/app/ask.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is important to be a list of cities and not, say, towns, there are plenty of incorporated towns with a population larger than 10,000. Danvers, Massachusetts, is the first example that comes to mind. Just something to consider. I think the best way to find an answer is to use the Census's "ask a question" link Wavelength posted. Pfly (talk) 02:00, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Census Bureau refers to cities and villages as "places" and entities like Massachusetts towns as "minor civil subdivisions." The problem is the bureau also counts unincorporated communities known as CDPs with "places," so a list of "places" will have both incorporated municipalities and places that aren't incorporated. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See census-designated place and minor civil division ("division", not "subdivision"); if you want municipalities only, you're not going to count anything in Hawaii except Honolulu, since it doesn't have cities in the sense that the other 49 states do. All New England towns and towns in New York and Wisconsin are minor civil divisions, as are townships in every state that has them as a functioning unit of government; see Civil township. Nyttend (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism

Why do feminists think that it's okay to oppress men? Isn't feminism just as sexist as misogyny? --207.160.233.153 (talk) 20:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't your premise somewhat flawed? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't their main belief that women are better than men? --207.160.233.153 (talk) 20:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that something you've picked up from gossip, and not something that's actually supported by the facts? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or from listening to Rush Limbaugh too much. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear for the OP, the basic tenets of feminism is essentially identical to gender equality; that is women should be given the same rights and privileges as men and should not be singled out or treated inferior merely for their gender. To be fair to the OP, there is a term called Misandry which may be what the OP is talking about; but misandry as an actual political or social movement, while it does exist, represents the Lunatic fringe of feminism; the vast majority of people who self-idenitify as feminist are merely interested in eliminating gender discrimination against women and do not feel that either gender is inherently "superior". --Jayron32 22:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also to be fair to the OP, "feminism" is a misleading word. Communism means "supporting Communists", racism means "supporting only one race", and nationalism means "supporting only one nation"; linguistically, there's no reason why feminism doesn't mean "supporting only females". --140.180.14.123 (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But, it doesn't mean supporting until they become the dominant gender. 88.9.210.218 (talk) 01:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Male feminists.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

207.160.233.153 -- The people who hold such beliefs as you mention call themselves "Female supremacists", and tend to look down with disdain at mere feminists. What Wikipedia has on this is at Matriarchy#In feminist thought. Meanwhile, as Rebecca West may have said, "I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat or a prostitute." -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Zombie and similar past incidents

Hello,

I was reading an article on the Obama zombie incident (article here: http://newsfeed.time.com/2011/11/01/republicans-criticize-local-gop-group-for-obama-zombie-depiction/) and was wondering if other similar incidents of this nature have occurred in the past (towards a president from either party). I suspect there have been, but have had a hard time finding any. Thank you in advance for your help. Marcus Lupus (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of parallels are you looking for? That is, what parts of this incident are you looking for similarities to? --Jayron32 22:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You did have some Bush-as-a-vampire imagery while he was president — e.g. [1]. It's of a mostly different character than the "Obama zombie" stuff, though definitely not flattering. I don't think it was sent around by actual organs of the Democratic Party, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:11, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, imagery suggesting violence towards the president. It's not something one sees all to often, so I thought I'd ask whether there were past incidents (even the fast hundred or so years...). Marcus Lupus (talk) 00:20, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[2] here's one. The sad thing is, the news reports at the time presented the graphic as an example of free speech ... meanwhile the secret service was getting the guy fired, at which point the site was shut down. (It seems to be one of their top skills) Wnt (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the article doesn't describe the existance of any actual imagery of violence towards the US President. There was violent imagery for several people including Bob Dole (who was never president even if running to be one at the time) and Boris Yeltsin (who was the President of Russia at the time but never the US). The source also mentions the artist was considering adding Bill Clinton, and perhaps he did (although perhaps the site was shut down before he got round to it), but your source obviously doesn't establish he did. It may also be there was someone else in the list who was a president of the US but again, not mentioned in your source. Nil Einne (talk) 03:13, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baby Bush was the butt of many violent depictions. For example, one artist made mock U.S. stamps that showed Bush with a gun to his head. The main difference is that when Bush was depicted in this way, the response was that he deserved it for being Republican. When Obama is depicted as a zombie, the response from both Republicans and Democrats was that it was in bad taste and should not happen ever again. -- kainaw ™ 02:37, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While there may be a difference in the way violent depictions of Bush were treated, I don't think the examples you've given show that. As Mr.98 mention and the source says, the example of the Obama zombie was from a GOP group, so Republicans had no choice to respond (and the media probably specifically asked them) to make it clear this was just one isolated group and not supported by most Republicans. The Bush stamp thing which was investigated by the Secret Service [3] [4], was my some random artist who's ties to any party don't seem to be mentioned and even if he was a member of the Democratic party, he was clear doing it as an individual so there was no point for people in either of the 2 major parties in the US to respond (and from what I can tell they didn't) and most likely the media never asked for a response. Nil Einne (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not hard to find overreactions to presidential death images from previous administrations. Here's a story about the secret service investigating a high school student's t-shirt. APL (talk) 03:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the distinction of "random depiction" versus "a depiction sent out through official party channels" is a pretty big one. You can find a lot of individual nuts in the world, nobody doubts that. But for a nutty idea to be given some semblance of validity through official political channels is a pretty different situation. --Mr.98 (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not violent and not a president but the painting of Harold Washington entitled Mirth & Girth might be worth a look. Washington was the mayor of Chicago. Dismas|^(talk) 03:40, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]