Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 January 9

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.

January 9

Origin of "G20" of G20 Schools

What does the "G20" of G20 Schools represent, if anything? Currently it's 50 schools from 20 countries, but in the beginning it was far fewer schools in far fewer countries, so I don't think the 20 is in reference to 20 countries.

Does it have anything to do with the more well know G20 economies? The two list have some differences, with Singapore and Ghana in G20 Schools but not in the G20 economies and Turkey in the G20 economies but with no school in the G20 Schools. 731Butai (talk) 08:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know for sure but it's easily possible in 2006 there were only 20 schools. The oldest version of our article seems to suggest this albeit it's unsourced [1]. It does link to the PDF archived here [2], if I counted correctly there were 21 schools in that list but it's possible or even probable that not all attended. But this was in 2008, 2 years after the group was formed. It's also possible the number was simply around 20, and G20 sounded better than G17 or whatever. Nil Einne (talk) 17:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Slaves at the White House

Where did slaves of incumbent US presidents reside at the White House? Which president brought the most the slaves to reside in the White House during his term? Who were the last slaves to reside at the White House?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

At least a bunch stayed in the basement. Now called the ground floor. Not the penthouse, by any name. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

(EC) [3] says:

the slave and servant quarters were in the basement, now called the ground floor. The rooms now include the library, china room, offices and the formal Diplomatic Reception Room. At least one African-American baby was born there, in 1806 to Fanny and Eddy, two of Jefferson's slaves. The child, who was also considered a slave, died two years later

It links to the page archived here [4] but that doesn't actually seem to mention the info. However I found [5] which does mention that most lived in the basement.

That source mentions James K. Polk did have slaves at the White House. Although the slave trade was banned in Washington D.C. in 1950 [6], slavery itself wasn't eliminated until 1962 [7] [8] (also implied by earlier source).

This sources mentions James Buchanan apparently removed African Americans from White House staff [9]. It's not totally clear if this happened the moment he took up residency. But presuming it does and since Millard Fillmore was somewhat opposed to slavery and came from a state where it wasn't allowed, it may mean neither had any slaves at the White House (it's possible someone else enslaved people there during Fillmore's tenure, but I'm not sure who it would be).

This probably means Polk or Zachary Taylor was the last to bring slaves to the White House. Unfortunately the source doesn't give any names for the people enslaved by Polk at the White House. Since it involves the president during his presidency and time in the White House, I would guess there are sources which give there names, but I wouldn't be completely sure considering how poorly they were treated and little they were often regarded.

This source lists presidents by number of people they owned [10] it doesn't say which had the most. However it could only be those in all caps (all of them seem to have had enough that it could be any). BTW, that source also supports the idea Millard Fillmore didn't personally own slaves. The only caveat is that the ref seems to suggest there was slavery in DC until 1965, which doesn't seem to be supported by the other refs.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

We did not have slaves until 1965. Your 8 key might be broken. And emancipation only worked for areas under rebellion, not the capital of the USA so 1865 is right. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:17, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Typo, apologies. Your other point doesn't make much sense. I already provided 3 refs which say slavery was eliminated in DC in 1862. I've now provided another one, our article, below. If you have other refs which say it wasn't eliminated in 1862, please provide them. What happened in the rest of the US with different later laws or actions like the 1863 Emancipation Proclamation is irrelevant to what happened specifically in DC due to the specific law relating to the DC which two of the refs I provided before your comment mention. (The other ref says it was abolished in 1862, but doesn't name the law.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

My mistake, I wasn't aware of that law and allowing slavery in the parts of the Union where slavery was legal seemed to fit with Lincoln's pragmatic personality. Slavery was legal in every Union slave state till the 13th Amendment in 1865. There were even legal slaves even in the free states till then. (only New Jersey but still) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Technically, there are still many American slaves. It's just frowned upon now. Not eliminated. But yeah, that's a bit pedantic. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I should have said abolished instead of eliminated. Apologies. Nil Einne (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

(EC) [11] says:

the slave and servant quarters were in the basement, now called the ground floor. The rooms now include the library, china room, offices and the formal Diplomatic Reception Room. At least one African-American baby was born there, in 1806 to Fanny and Eddy, two of Jefferson's slaves. The child, who was also considered a slave, died two years later

It links to the page archived here [12] but that doesn't actually seem to mention the info. However I found [13] which does mention that most lived in the basement. That source mentions James K. Polk did have slaves at the White House.

Although the slave trade was banned in Washington D.C. in 1950 [14], slavery itself wasn't eliminated until 1962 [15] [16] District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act (also implied by earlier source). But this sources mentions James Buchanan apparently removed African Americans from White House staff [17]. It's not totally clear if this happened the moment he took up residency. I don't think Abraham Lincoln has any slaves. And Millard Fillmore was somewhat opposed to slavery and came from a state where it wasn't allowed. Taken together this may mean none of the threehad any slaves at the White House. (It's possible Madison did briefly have slaves at the White House and it's also possible someone else enslaved people there during Fillmore or Lincoln's tenure before abolition, but I'm not sure who it would be.)

This probably means Polk or Zachary Taylor was the last to bring slaves to the White House. Unfortunately the source doesn't give any names for the people enslaved by Polk at the White House. Since it involves the president during his presidency and time in the White House, I would guess there are sources which give there names, but I wouldn't be completely sure considering how poorly they were treated and little they were often regarded.

This source lists presidents by number of people they owned [18] it doesn't say which had the most. However it could only be those in all caps (all of them seem to have had enough that it could be any). The only caveat is that the ref seems to suggest there was slavery in DC until 1865, which doesn't seem to be supported by the other refs. BTW, that source also supports the idea Millard Fillmore and Abraham Lincoln didn't personally own slaves.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Please pay close attention to your centuries. You've typed 1950 and 1962 above; I'm fairly certain you mean 1850 and 1862. General Ization ^Talk 19:35, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You're right, Sorry for the errors and confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The African-Americans dismissed by Buchanan could not have been slaves, could they? First, I think a slave had to be owned by a master. It couldn't be owned "by the White House", could they? When they were any in the White House they must have been the personal property of the president. Second, if they were slaves they wouldn't have said "dismissed" but "sold". Incidentally, could corporations own slaves? Contact Basemetal here 19:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You're right that slaves had to be owned by someone. That doesn't mean they had to owned by the president though. Technically it's possible they could be owned by someone else and work in the White House, although as I said above, I don't know who and I find it unlikely. Edit: My main point here is that it's not something I feel comfortable completely ruling out from what I know and read, so it's a caveat worth considering in any investigation of the last slave.

Anyway the main point of the Buchanan thing is that it seems to imply there weren't any African Americans at the White House during his tenure. While there were a few non African American/black slaves, they were rare enough particularly by the mid 19th century to IMO be irrelevant. So if there were none at the White House during his time, then there couldn't have been any slaves there either. This would apply even if there were ever any slaves owned by people other than the President living there while the president was in residency. (Dismissal is a little odd if they were slaves, but the specific wording is "dismissed from the White House ranks" which could mean removed from the White House. The slaves didn't have to be sold, they could simply be sent to work somewhere else.)

Anyway I just realised I confused presidents names James in the list of slave owners fortunately without mentioning it. James Buchanan isn't on the list who owned slaves which further supports the idea there were no slaves during his time there. Presuming this is true and it's also true for Fillmore and Lincoln, this strongly suggests the last slaves there were either during Taylor or Polk tenure. We know Polk definitely had slaves at the White House (per the source), so the OP (or someone else) needs to find out if Taylor (who did own slaves including during his time at the White House) did. From this, it may be possible to work out who the last slaves at the White House were. Perhaps there's a simple ref which discusses the last slaves at the White House, but I didn't find it.

P.S. This is assuming the OP meant living or at least working there for a long time. If it includes just briefly working (including perhaps being sent to delivery something), there's a greater chance someone would have been there during the tenures of Buchanan, Fillmore or Lincoln.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Texas Rangers

A while back, somebody told me that in order to become a Texas Ranger, an individual had to be born in Texas. But recently I was watching a rerun of Walker, Texas Ranger and one of the characters referred to Ranger Trivette as having been born in Baltimore. So, I'm wondering if Rangers really have to be from Texas, or if the show was using artistic license. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 21:07, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems Rangers can be born anywhere in the US, but need a Texas driver's licence and to already work for the Texas Department of Public Safety (presumably in Texas). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Residency would seem to be the requirement, not birthplace. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Can there really be a government job at the state (much less at the federal) level for which being born in a specific state would be a requirement? I very much doubt it. But I'm not a lawyer. Contact Basemetal here 21:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew the requirement couldn't have been in place when they first founded the Rangers, because most Texas citizens then were from other, older states or from Mexico. White Arabian Filly (Neigh) 22:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

There was a similar problem with the US Presidency, at the start. They got around it by considering anyone born in the colonies to have been born in the US. StuRat (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The only "specific state" restriction I'm aware of at the federal level is that the president and vice president cannot be residents of the same state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

There's no prohibition on the president and VP being residents of the same state; it's just that if they are, they need to get elected without any electoral votes from that state. If it was a small state and a popular candidate for president, that wouldn't be much of a hindrance. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Technically true. Nonetheless, when the major parties choose their candidates, they always make sure to have them come from different states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Not quite accurate: "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President". "A citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" does not require that they be born in one of the thirteen colonies. It could have been a Englishman, a German or a Frenchman, as long as they had become American citizens by 1789. Incidentally the meaning of "a natural born citizen" is assumed to be "either born in the US or having at least one American parent" or Cruz (and previously McCain) wouldn't be in the running. Cruz's case is a bit different from that of McCain as McCain was born on a US military base (maybe even a US territory at the time?) and never held any other citizenship. Contact Basemetal here 19:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Barry Goldwater is another example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

How so? Wasn't he born in Phoenix, Arizona Territory? Contact Basemetal here 19:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The Arizona Territory wasn't part of the Union. George W. Romney was a Mexican born to Americans. Christopher Schürmann was an American born to Germans. Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. was (and is) the French son of an American and the grandson of a German. Needless to say, none of them won. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The Constitution doesn't say anything about a "natural born citizen" having to be born in one of the states of the Union, as opposed to on the territory of the United States. Do you have any explicit discussion of the Goldwater case to indicate that this is not correct? Contact Basemetal here 19:58, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Nay, good sir, I have not. And yeah, theoretically, even a Puerto Rican can be President. As far as the Constitution is concerned, anyway. But no man shall become President who isn't popular, and Johnson (and his own party) seems to have painted Goldwater as a sketchy outsider extremely well. There was more to it than his Confederate ties (real or imagined), but they didn't help. Nothing can help Cruz. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

How could Barry Goldwater, born 44 years after the collapse of the Confederacy, be accused of having Confederate ties ? StuRat (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

They would have approved of his political views. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Things collapse, but particularly in politics, spectres remain. I'll bet Roy Moore never met George Wallace, but they're still tied/linked/connected/whatever. There's apparently a zippier, glitzier version of LBJ in North Texas. It is figuratively linked to Madrid and literally connected to the President George Bush Turnpike. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

So a foreign-born person could have first shown up in the US in 1786, and then run for the Presidency ? StuRat (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

They have to have been a resident for at least 14 years, so it would be 1773 rather than 1786. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Ironically, if you assume the United States came into being on July 4, 1776 and since George Washington took office on April 30, 1789, it seems to me Washington failed the 14 years residency requirement by about 1 year and 3 months, unless I messed up my calculation. In other words no one should have been able to be president of the United States until July 4, 1790, because you can't have 14 years residency in the US before the US itself is 14 years old. Politicians! How stupid can they get! Contact Basemetal here 20:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently the founding fathers didn't see it that way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Apparently that is what the text says even though since never came to court and in practice this never happened it is hard to be affirmative. Note they could have said "born on the territory which now corresponds to the United States", or "born in one of the thirteenth colonies", etc. but they didn't. I wonder who they had in mind. Alexander Hamilton was born in Charlestown, Nevis, British West Indies, which was a British possession but not part of the original colonies. Are you saying Hamilton would never have been able to run for the presidency? Contact Basemetal here 19:37, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Was he a U.S. citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Why yes. He arrived in New Jersey in 1772 at the age of 17. Contact Basemetal here 19:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Then according to the Constitution he would be eligible to run for president. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. This is what I was assuming too. But the poor guy got shot. Contact Basemetal here 20:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that put a real burr in his plans, especially being shot by someone he didn't consider fit to be his errand boy. StuRat (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

"A burr in his plans". (And also a bullet in his pants). Did you just come up with that? (Yes I get it) I do hope it will become a phrase, like "a spanner in the works". Contact Basemetal here 15:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

But did you get "errand boy" ? (I considered spelling it differently, but that would have been too obvious.) StuRat (talk) 06:21, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

No. I trusted you and really assumed he had said that about Burr (see if I ever believe you again) and that turned off my pun detector. Had it been "[that put] an errant burr [in his plans]" on the other hand... Contact Basemetal here 12:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That is a good one. But Hamilton really didn't have much respect for Burr, and vice versa. This was not a case of two people who respected each other feeling, due to circumstances (like differing political views), the need to duel. StuRat (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

A phrase? Probably not. The best one can hope for these days is that something becomes "a thing". There's probably an International Court of Arbitration for Things, which pontificates on whether a thing is "a thing" or not. One can only wonder what a thing is when it is not, or not yet, "a thing". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I never understood why they put these kinds of arbitrary conditions in the laws for elected positions. Our old constitution used to say that the president must be at least 40 years of age. – b_jonas 13:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

What does the media in the Arab world report about the New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany?

How are Arabic newspapers, TVs and mass media reporting the New Year's Eve sexual assaults in Germany (and parallel attacks in other countries)? --Scicurious (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Here are just two examples from L'Orient-Le Jour and from Al Jazeera English. Someone whose Arabic is fluent may be able to provide Arabic language examples. Contact Basemetal here 21:42, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

And someone who can plug the Arabic word for "Cologne" into Canadian Google News can provide this. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Which is pointless for those who do not speak Arabic. And needless for those who do speak it.--Scicurious (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Pick a story and paste the URL here. It's not perfect, but close enough to get the gist. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Indirect Reporting, but the following appeared on the BBC Website last week:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35251167

Hope this is of help. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)