Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 September 19

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.

September 19

Dr. without dissertation around the world

In which countries, people don't care who just put a Dr. before his name? Quest09 (talk) 01:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "people don't care"? And are you referring to PhD.s or M.D.s? In the US at least, people will care a lot if you are pretending to be an M.D. They might not care if you pretend to be a PhD. Blueboar (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

just sign your name Dor. John SMITH. People will assume it's a foreign abbreviation for "doctor" (whereas, though you don't mention it, you've just taken up the pen name Dorothy). 82.234.207.120 (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Vietnam, i would say. People is not going to call you with special tittle even you are a king or the best person in the world. They just call you by your name.Trongphu (talk) 02:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I was not asking where do people do not care about legit degrees. It was more like: in what countries the Dr. before your name is not regulated or where nobody cares if you did your PhD or not. In what countries John Smith could simply print a card with Dr. J. Smith and get away with it. Quest09 (talk)

Well i guess the answer to your question is "all the poor countries and some developing country". It's also base on chance, in any countries in the world, you may get caught if you unlucky. In richer countries like the US as an example, there is more chance of being caught by doing illegal stuffs like claim that you have a PhD but you actually don't have one.Trongphu (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I am not aware of any law in the United States that forbids claiming you have a PhD even though you actually don't. Now, if you induce someone to buy your services on that basis, that's different; that's fraud, which is illegal pretty much everywhere I'd think. But just lying about it, with no transaction involved? As far as I know that's perfectly legal. (Note: I am not a lawyer.) --Trovatore (talk) 02:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not the United States, you get in trouble there for using "Dr" even if you have a Doctor Juris degree (JD), which is literally a doctor of law, but only the first legal degree and not the terminal one. some woman politician got in troubl for that recently... I am sorry for saying "woman politician" I wish there was some way to edit this. I should have just said someone who was a politician (a woman). 82.234.207.120 (talk) 04:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"I wish there was some way to edit this"? You must be joking. ElMa-sa (talk) 08:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, if you hold a doctorate in any subject, you can call yourself "Doctor" quite legitimately. Unfortunately, people tend to think that only medical doctors are entitled to use the term "Doctor". This can cause problems. Is this the sort of situation the OP is referring to? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. Quest09 (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In the UK, anyone can call themselves anything they like. There are laws against practising medicine without a license and there are laws against fraud, but neither of those stop you using any title you like socially. --Tango (talk) 12:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That is, Dr. Tango. Quest09 (talk) 13:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV for the "that's a bluelink?" of the day... --Jayron32 12:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by 'get in trouble'? I've looked in to the case and I'm finding no evidence there was any real legal risk. In most countries with a free media and resonable level of democracy, calling yourself by a title people feel is undeserved or unwarranted is liable to have a negative effect on your reputation which is generally a bad thing for a politician, but this is a rather different thing. There are of course some circumstances where you may get in trouble as Tango mentioned for the UK (but likely apply to the US) and Trovatore mentioned in the US but again that doesn't mean it's illegal to call yourself a Dr in all circumstances in the US if you have no (what people would call) legitimate claim to the title. Nil Einne (talk) 03:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Dr. J, Dr. John, and Dr. Hook aren't breaking any laws, as far as I know. --Jayron32 04:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, Dr. Hook probably is, but that's an issue aside from the name... --Mr.98 (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Only at the Freaker's Ball, however...--Jayron32 19:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Coal miners in gilded age at United States?

How many people were dead each year in the gilded age in the United States (after civil war to 1900 year) by working in coal mine? What are the majority cause of the death like black lung disease or accident or...? Is there any protection for coal miners during that time like equipment or something like that? What are the protection, equipment? Total death toll for coal miners in 19th century in the US? And if anyone knows any more info and statistic about coal mining in gilded age. Everything about it would be helpful. All the info should only from in period of the gilded age in the US. Thanks!Trongphu (talk) 02:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Social sciences and humanities approaches to past labour safety issues have fallen under historical Industrial Relations and Labour History. These fields tend to not produce statistical compilations, due to the highly contested ideological nature of what constitutes a work place death and socially acceptable safety equipment. My understanding, from reading the abstract to This Book and from Gollan's book on the Australian coal miners, is that coal mining was paid on a piece rate system by gang, where the Boss controlled the piece rates, causing the use of safety apparatus and shoring work to be underfunded systematically (See Emile Zola's novel Germinal). Total Death Tolls for mining are hard to compute. Do pinkerton murders count? Does drinking yourself to death because you hate the work count? Does dying at 60 from exhaustion count? Black lung? As Gollan observes in relation to Australia, coal miners became class conscious at a very early stage—control over the mining industry was about naked class warfare, including day-to-day resistance. Treating this kind of territory as if it is amenable to a statistical analysis of agreed "industrial deaths" and acceptable "protection equipment" is futile. Miners wanted more shoring and more money for shoring universally. Employers wanted to (and did) test the minimal necessary shoring requirements by destructive testing. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

So there are no statistic before 20th century? I found some statistics about total death toll from beginning of 20th century forward. By death toll i mean all the deaths involve in mining (suicide because you hate the job would also count since mining caused it). There are actually no safe equipment to make the job safer? I doubt it, i believe over the past century they have developed many equipment to make it safe for mine workers.174.20.78.221 (talk) 21:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In many cases, safety equipment was technologically available, but not provided by mine operators. See, for example, the Darr Mine Disaster; 239 deaths because open lamps were used rather than safety lamps, which had been developed almost a century earlier.

Regarding overall fatality statistics, it's not that they don't exist, but they're harder to calculate - there was much less official reporting of this sort of thing in the past. You might find this paper interesting; it quotes an estimate of ~3 direct deaths per thousand workers per year in the late nineteenth century. There's a fairly broad bibliography, and you'll likely find all the statistics you need there... Shimgray | talk | 21:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Here we go, the link is what exactly what i needed. Thanks a lot. Thanks the person above too for some addition info.Trongphu (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

How much has black flight contributed to the population decline and urban decay of many American cities since the 1950’s when compared to white flight?

In my previous question I asked why all those American cities that are declining in population generally started doing so in the 1950s and what were the reasons behind their decline. One of the reasons given to me had to do with the concept of white flight. That is a term I've heard many times before (but I'm not too familiar with) and that many of us are probably familiar with, but when I got into the See Also section of the white flight article I came across the concept of black flight. As black flight is now a new concept for me like I mentioned above, I’m curious to know to what extent has black flight contributed to the population decline and urban decay of many American cities since the 1950’s compared to white flight. Black flight doesn't seem to be a term that comes up often. Willminator (talk) 02:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure white flight has bigger influence. I'm not try to being racist or something. I'm a pro equally for ALL. But well i do have to admit that white typically richer than black (simply enough because they have been superior for so long, which shouldn't be that way) so there should be more white move to suburb and have a nice house(or just a house) than black.Trongphu (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Also because whites are simply more numerous in America. 69.171.160.78 (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not on topic, but interesting, I think: [1] Bus stop (talk) 04:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "black flight" would have much effect on city population, since only wealthy blacks typically leave, and they are a small portion of the population. However, losing wealthy taxpayers (of any race) has a disproportionate effect on the tax-base, especially if they are business owners and take their business with them to their new location. StuRat (talk) 04:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

What are you looking for that the article doesn't cover. 9 million blacks moving from the inner city to the suburbs (1960-2000) certainly appears significant. Rmhermen (talk) 06:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Unscrupulous lending practices by banks allowed almost anyone to get a mortgage in the mid 2000s and buy a home, leading to movements to new suburban housing. This applies to blacks as well as whites; poor blacks have been facing a lot of repossessions since the credit crash. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There are two books you should read if you are interested in this subject:

• Dreier, Peter (2005) [2001]. Place Matters (2nd Revised ed.). Kansas: University Press of Kansas. ISBN 0-700-61364-1.
• Peterson, Paul E. (1981) [1981]. City Limits. Illinois: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-66293-4.

Gx872op (talk) 15:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Gx872op, I'll check out those books you recommended to me. Thank you. Willminator (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the black flight article says that “Early years of residential change accelerated in the late 1960s after passage of civil rights legislation ended segregation, and African Americans could exercise more choices in housing and jobs. Since the 1950s, there began a period of major restructuring of industries and loss of hundreds of thousands of industrial jobs in northeast and Midwest cities. Since the late 20th century, these events led to reduced density in formerly black neighborhoods in cities such as Chicago, Detroit, and Philadelphia, which have also had absolute population decreases, losing white population as well.” So, does that means that the black flight to the suburbs was indeed a significant and impactful thing, but still not nearly as significant and impactful as white flight was, and not nearly as significant and impactful to warrant significant attention in the history books? Willminator (talk) 17:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The main social impact of black flight has been to separate the poor African American population of many cities from the African American middle class, many or most of whom have moved to either the suburbs or to more affluent urban neighborhoods. This has led to the development of poor African American neighborhoods that lack role models and personal networks that might lead to employment opportunities. Before black flight, most African American neighborhoods included middle-class families who attended the same churches and schools as the poorer population and whose businesses might have offered jobs to poorer neighborhood acquaintances. Sociologists such as William Julius Wilson have argued that black flight has cut off many of these avenues of opportunity and consigned poor black neighborhoods to entrenched poverty. So, the main impact of black flight has not been on urban populations in most cities but on economic conditions in cities with large poor, black populations. Marco polo (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

does anyone know any jokes like this?

does anyone know any jokes like this:

person a: Do you know any (somebody's name) jokes? person b: Yeah - (same name)!

In other words, person b is saying that that person themselves is a joke. for example: Do you know any Michele Backmann jokes? Yeah - Michele Bachmann!

anyway this is the formula and I wonder if anyone knows any jokes like that. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I vote we move this to the Miscellaneous desk, but to the OP, can you tell us what on earth you actually want? How broadly are we to interpret your formula? If it has to be in the exact format you described, I could give you several, but they would all be the same, and by the way, none of them would be particularly funny. It's been emotional (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"Yeah - jokes with that formula!". I guess though that there must be some people who are particularly common targets of this form of joke (or non-joke).  Card Zero  (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding posts by this user. --RA (talk) 12:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

See here in the names section--85.55.198.76 (talk) 20:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Electricity Pylons

Could anyone tell me who owns pylons in the UK? If they are placed on public land (e.g. in/near parks), do the owners pay "rent" or any sort of fee for placing them there? And, finally, how successful are petitions to get them removed from public areas for aesthetic reasons? Thanks much in advance for any answers. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 12:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

In England and Wales, National Grid plc. In Scotland, Scottish Power and Scottish and Southern Energy. Pass on question 2. ON 3, I guess "not very", since the costs of removal are extremely high. But cheer up: there's quite a lot going on in prettifying pylons. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Perfect answer. Ta very much. :-) Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 13:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The basic pylon design was by Sir Giles Gilbert Scott - [2] - who also designed cathedrals. Some would say his pylons are rather more functional, and no less beautiful. Pylon fans can join the Pylon Appreciation Society. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

For US readers, an electricity pylon is an electrical transmission tower. StuRat (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

When talking about removing them, there are two possibilities:

1) Bury the wires, instead.

2) Move them elsewhere. This is sure to bring opposition from whoever now gets to stare at them. StuRat (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding question 2, yes the power companies pay rent. See here for some details of wayleaves and easements (which are not the same thing in UK law, though Wikipedia seems to think they are). There was a big fuss a few years ago when the power companies wanted to pay farmers a lump sum instead of administrating ongoing rents. They didn't get away with it.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 16:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall my father, as occupier of some land, though not the owner, used to receive one shilling per pylon per year back around 1970. He never did get very rich... -- Arwel Parry (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

A relative is involved in the Groton Pylon Alliance which aims to have some projected pylons rerouted past somebody else's houses. Removing existing pylons may be a taller order, although they did it for the 2012 Olympic Park. Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Following on from Ghmyrtle's comment above, there is currently a UK competition (between professional firms of architects) for the design of the 'next generation' of the UK's pylons - one report with some pictures is here, others can be found by googling. What those stills don't make obvious is that most of the 6 finalist designs are shorter than (though retaining the same cable heights as) the current Scott design. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.49 (talk) 18:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Agreed that Ghmyrtle's link says it was designed by GGS and I thought so too, but nearly everyone else seems to think that the winner of the 1928 competition (chosen by classical architect Reginald Blomfield) was a design by the Milliken Brothers (don't tell anyone, but they were Americans shhhh...) [3][4][5][6][7][8] Maybe the confusion comes from the fact that Blomfield was on the 1924 committee that chose GGS's design for the Red telephone box. Alansplodge (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The most successful way to get existing pylons replaced by underground ducts, is for yourselves to offer to pay for the necessary work – which is horrendously more expensive than overhead transmission. The problem with petitions is that the petitioners expect that for their unobstructed view, all the transmissions company's other customers should pay for it or other tax payers (if it comes from the public purse. --Aspro (talk) 19:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

To answer one of your questions, petitions on their own are unlikely to succeed. A big campaign, which would include a petition, might have some chance if it is correctly prepared and if enough people join in. The first step is to talk to the local authority planning department(s) and find out their view. Find out if the land is in a national park or an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Is anything special about the landscape that means the power lines should be buried? Itsmejudith (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

A third option may soon be to use carbon nanotube based transmission cables, which should be stronger and carry more power, reducing the number of pylons needed. Wnt (talk) 10:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

"Here at British Plutonium, we use the latest technology to make your world only half as hideous as we made it before." :-) StuRat (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, especially in a place like the Ridge and Valley province of Pennsylvania, which has something of a Riverworld-like topology, stronger cables would really matter. I think it might make the difference between having a 50-foot wide clear-cut all the way down one forested hill, across inhabited valley, and up the next hill, versus having two small cleared areas at the top of each hill linked by cables you would barely see, except for the all too inevitable lights and spheres to warn off planes. Wnt (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There's currently a good article on The Economist website roughly on this subject. Useful factoids: underground cables are 12 - 17 times more expensive than pylons, involve a 17m to 40m wide sterilised corridor, and have to be replaced more often. :--Tagishsimon (talk) 23:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see where it says they last longer on pylons, and that doesn't seem to make sense, since the buried wires are protected from the environment (assuming you bury them below the frost line). StuRat (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Earliest certain celebrity endorsement in history?

Simple question - what is the earliest celebrity endorsement in history that historians are certain actually happened? Obviously this disqualifies conjectures that Da Vinci was on posters for Luigi's Quills & Scrolls... The Masked Booby (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I expect claims could be made about ancient Egypt. The Pharaohs endorsed all sorts of things, depending on what you mean by "endorse". Itsmejudith (talk) 12:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I would suspect there'd be something of this nature in Herodotus, but I can't think of a precise example right now. (Herodotus doesn't necessarily confer certainty, though). I think it would be celebrity endorsement for a fashion (a ruler or athlete or politician started doing or wearing something in a particular way, and others imitated), rather than for a specific branded product. Maybe that doesn't quite fit the question. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Royal warrant of appointment is a centuries-old old system in several countries, if the king/queen counts as a celebrity; according to Royal Warrant of Appointment (United Kingdom) the earliest in the UK was in the year 1155 to the Weavers' Company. The articles don't have much useful information. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have read that there is a graffito in Pompeii to the effect that the prostitutes of a given brothel recommended a vote for a given politician. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

That's true. It's in classical Latin too. HiLo48 (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Biblical evidence for sponsorship of a motor manufacturer: Moses came down in Triumph. --Dweller (talk) 09:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Animals and the New Zealand Māori

Are there any animals typically associated with the Māori of New Zealand? --CGPGrey (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"New Zealand has many unique native fish, insects, birds, lizards and frogs. Our only native mammals are bats and marine mammals."[9]. See also Biodiversity of New Zealand. Alansplodge (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Not a full answer, but the extinct bird the Huia was sacred to Maoris. There weren't actually many vertebrates in New Zealand other than birds (see Fauna of New Zealand). --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Kiwi - see kiwi and Māori. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe whales; see Whales in Māori tradition and Maori, whales and "whaling"; an ongoing relationship. We have an article on the legend of Paikea. There was also the rather good 2002 film Whale Rider. Alansplodge (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

But the kiwi most particularly. We even call the people "Kiwis". Is there any other people on Earth who are regularly referred to by the name of an animal peculiar to their country? I doubt it. Australians are not called "kangaroos" or "koalas" or "platypuses" (but I have known a couple of Tasmanian tigers). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Frogs? ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 20:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes. But that's a little bit pejorative, whereas "kiwi" can be used without fear of offending anyone. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I know that the Papua New Guinea national rugby league team is known as the Kumuls. Not sure if the term can be applied to PNG nationals too. Our article on the bird doesn't even mention the rugby league connection. --Dweller (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I doubt it. For some unexplained reason, around 20 years ago it became customary to name to give every separate Australian sporting team a different nickname, even different names for the male and female teams. One of our rugby teams (can't recall which one) is called the Wallabies, but that's not a nickname for Australians in general. HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I should clarify that "Kiwi" applies to all New Zealanders, not just Maoris, but it certainly includes Maoris. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Survival rate of US government programs that kick in in the next administration

When some president actually gets something he's backing through Congress and signed into law, but that bundle of legislation is set to take effect after he's out (and won't be able to veto attempts to change it anymore), how often does it happen that that legislation gets reversed or modified at all before it even spends one day as active law as originally passed? For instance, in a current article talking about President Barack Obama's proposed debt plan, "[a senior administration official] added that any changes to Medicare benefits won't kick in before 2017." If such a thing passed, what are the odds (and by 'what are the odds,' I mean the odds based on past survival rates as I'm talking about) that those "changes," whatever they are, would become active law exactly as they were when they got passed (hypothetically assuming they did) by 2017? Yes, yes, past performance cannot predict future returns. I'm just asking the factual question of survival rates until implementation post-originator in the past. 20.137.18.50 (talk) 13:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd think it would depend almost entirely on who follows the current President:

1) If a member of the opposing party is now President (and dominates Congress, too), the chances it will last are very low.

2) If a member of the same party is now President (and dominates Congress, too), the chances it will last are quite high, especially in the case where the previous President was assassinated. StuRat (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, the way to stop this back-and-forth legislation is to require a supermajority to pass or repeal laws. Currently, the only mechanism for this for regular laws (as opposed to Constitutional Amendments) is the rather silly filibuster and cloture process in the US Senate. If both houses needed 60% to pass a law and 60% to repeal it, then laws would be unlikely to pass and even more unlikely to be repealed (since going from 60% support to 40% is a big leap). StuRat (talk) 15:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

We effectively have a 60% majority requirement for anything at the moment on account of the filibuster requirement in the Senate. It has not proved very effective at actually making policy. This is in part because the current state of the filibuster does not require an actual filibuster, just the threat of one. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think filibusters can be used in all cases, though. For one, thing, they're exhausting. So, little bills get through, since nobody cares enough to filibuster them. StuRat (talk) 00:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't actually have to get up and speak to prevent passage these days. If someone indicates that they will filibuster the bill to prevent passage, the Senate will move onto other business. See Filibuster in the United States Senate. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing Reid pulling an LBJ at some point and making an opponent actually get up on their feet and talk for a while, but that's not likely to happen. Buddy431 (talk) 06:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

What Buddy431 says (and I said) is correct. Filibusters are not exhausting anymore. They are used routinely. Since the Republicans became a minority in the Senate in 2007, there were well over 100 filibuster threats (note that the graph there are for cloture motions, which attempt to undo/avoid filibusters — so there are likely more filibuster threats than indicated on that chart), over a doubling of the previous period (which itself showed a steady increasing of filibuster threats from previous congresses). They've relied on the filibuster as their main "negotiating tactic" because it's very hard to get a 3/5ths majority and because they don't actually have to do any filibustering. One of the major reforms being suggested for reducing this abuse of the filibuster is to require them to actually filibuster again — if they are going to require 60 votes, they ought to have to work for it, not just say, "we're filibustering" and go home. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

President's Voting for Candidates

Can you make a Wiki Page of all the Former Presidents of the United States and can you list which candidate they voted for President throughout there lifetime? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.130.241 (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Very unlikely. We have a secret ballot. So at best we could report whom the former presidents claimed to have voted for. I doubt most of them ever even made a firm statement about that; it's generally just assumed that they voted for their own party, but you never know.

(There was a claim made that Reagan voted for Clinton in '92, but there's no way of checking it that I can see.) --Trovatore (talk) 23:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

By 1992 Reagan probably thought he was voting for waffles. --Sean 18:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict) The first part of your request is I think met by the existing article List of Presidents of the United States. The second part might be difficult: my understanding is that in the USA, as in most other countries (legally if not always in practice) everyone's vote is a secret ballot, so one could only know who they voted for in any election if they had come out and said so. Although some future or past Presidents might sometimes have done this (though who knows if all of them were always honest?), it seems unlikely that most of them did so for most of the times they voted. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.241 (talk) 23:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

There used to be a very different attitude, where it was thought that anyone who campaigned for himself and voted for himself was too immodest. Back then, I wouldn't be surprised if they would have voted for another (or at least claimed to), so they would seem properly meek, and thus inherit the Earth, or at least the Presidency. StuRat (talk) 23:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe for president of the sixth grade. --Trovatore (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Our article on the secret ballot suggests that this is possible for presidents who died prior to 1884 "In the United States, most states had moved to secret ballots soon after the presidential election of 1884." However, I'd suggest that the partisan nature of newspapers in that age, and the quality of recording Joe Q Public's voting for 40+ years prior to their presidency, means that no such data sets will exist. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)