Humanities desk
< September 16	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 18 >

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

September 17

Youngest President??

One of the most common mistakes people make is thinking that Kennedy was the youngest President of the United States. The youngest is Theodore Roosevelt. Is this mistake common for a reason?? Look at:

"John Fitzgerald Kennedy: America's Youngest President (Childhood of Famous Americans): Frisbee, Lucy Post: 9780020419907: Amazon.com: Books"

Georgia guy (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason undoubtedly is that people don't focus on the distinction between presidents who were elected at the youngest age (Kennedy), and those who succeeded at the youngest age (Roosevelt) due to the death of the incumbent. It's hardly an arcane or abstruse point, but people lead busy lives and tend to skip these sorts of things. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that JFK was younger when he died than TR was when he left office may also play in to it.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 04:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Most people (at lest those who have a clue who he is) visualize Teddy Roosevelt as an old guy with a mustache. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A mustache can make someone look older. He died in 1919, at age 60. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:37, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Worth noting is that the book mentioned by Georgia guy is a children's book, marketed to those in the 8 to 12 year old range. The author died over 25 years ago, so this book is not current. So, it should not be considered a reliable source. Cullen328 (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not current?? Cullen328, please note that the statement that Theodore Roosevelt is America's youngest President is a statement for the whole period starting with his 1901 inauguration. As for the "children's" part of your statement, is it okay to lie to children 8-12 by saying something that they must wait until they're older to learn?? (Apply this statement to the statement that Kennedy is America's youngest President.) Georgia guy (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think probably Cullen was alluding to the phenomenon that children's books are less thoroughly fact-checked than serious academic works, not that publishers think it's ok to lie to children.

I regularly try to improve upon citations that reference children's books, for optics if nothing else. Folly Mox (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia guy, I neither said nor implied that it is OK to lie to children although Santa Claus will be ubiquitous in 90 days. My point is that a children's book first published in 1964, the year after Kennedy's death, is not evidence of a more widespread misunderstanding. Cullen328 (talk) 22:12, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a bit of confusion due to some imprecise writing somewhere along the way, if Kennedy was the youngest to be elected president and "elected" got forgotten. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:86EA (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Annett, canadian Activist

I just listened to a podcast with Kevin Annett, an activist for canadian "First Nations". I know that the, two, three years old, stories about First Nation "mass graves" were stupid, those simple do not exist. But I also know a little bit about the history of "Indian" boarding schools in the USA, etc... So my question is: is this guy Annett serious (at least most of the time), and if he is, why is he not on WP?--Ralfdetlef (talk) 06:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian Indian residential school gravesites contain mass graves. For a person to have an article on Wikipedia, two things are needed: (1) sufficient reliably sourced material to produce an article about the subject, also indicating why they are "notable", and (2) a volunteer who writes and submits the initial version. I do not know which of these two is the main problem here, but if you can find the required material, this might become your first article. --Lambiam 12:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To start, here is a bio. Although not from a "reliable source", presumably many of the relevant parts can also be found in news sources. This is a review (in a reliable source) of a documentary on the deliberate genocide featuring (and produced by) Annett, which won the award for Best International Documentary at the 2006 Los Angeles Independent Film Festival. This review confirms, for example, that he was a Minister at St. Andrews United Church. --Lambiam 12:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More relevant material: "Truth and Native Abuse" about Annett's role being controversial. In view of the WP:BLP policy this requires extra care in reliably sourcing any possibly contentious material. --Lambiam 12:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the OP's incorrect premise about the mass graves, maybe he should first educate himself on the subject before writing about it. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 16:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And First Nations is a well-established term in Canada. Putting it in quotation marks is also a sign of needing to read up more on the subject. Xuxl (talk) 18:14, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or of not being a native English-speaker. And I think posting here is a sign of wanting to educate themself about the subject. DuncanHill (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, a few of the biggest 2021 claims about sites of possible large mass graves turned out to not have any remains at all, and the contrast between this and the whole political furore somewhat discredited the topic in the eyes of some. AnonMoos (talk) 12:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It must be difficult to find non-biased, reliable information on Avery. And he sounds like be a fanatic. But I do think that he really cares for First Nation people. And he raises important points - as opposed to the vast lot of people with WP entries.--07:47, 19 September 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralfdetlef (talk • contribs)

Neither really caring about something nor raising important points is relevant to a Wikipedia article unless independent commentators have picked the subject up and written about it in depth, I'm afraid, Ralfdetlef. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinFine (talk • contribs) 10:10, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I have only just read the very interesting piece on Annett by Terry Glavin in the The Tyee, that user:Lambiam linked to. Annett really didn't sound THAT crazy on the podcast.--Ralfdetlef (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shojo-Mangas?

Is it true that Shojo has a lots of stuff about romance and something like the early version of Sailor Moon? 2A02:8071:60A0:92E0:801:E91D:7755:5A49 (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that Shojo manga has lots of stuff about romance and something, yes. It's a primary theme. Folly Mox (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New cars in Australia

At Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2023 September 1, I asked about autogas versus petrol for vehicle fuel, and one of the responses remarked Most new cars are bought by businesses. What share of new cars are bought by individuals, as opposed to companies/organisations/government/etc? It's easy to find information about how many new cars are sold, but otherwise I'm finding false positives like Australian New Car Buyer magazine, not information about the parties who buy new cars. Obviously VicRoads and its interstate analogues can ascertain this information, but is it published anywhere? Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]