Humanities desk
< December 14	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 16 >

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.

December 15[edit]

Statistics (other than census data) by race and/or ethnicity: The earliest examples of this?[edit]

Apparently the Russian Empire was collecting criminality data by ethnicity as early as 1915:

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/crime-in-russian-empire/

In turn, this made me wonder--what are some of the earliest examples of statistics (other than census data, which I do not want here) being done by race and/or ethnicity? Any country and/or territory in the world could work for this--again, just so long as you're not actually using census data–or some variation or derivative of census data–here. (The reason that I don't want census data here is because we already have a Wikipedia article–created by myself almost a decade ago–titled Race and ethnicity in censuses.)

Thoughts? Futurist110 (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this 1896 United States publication, I see separate mortality statistics for both white people and colored people: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Mortality_Among_Negroes_in_Cities/94lEAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=mortality+white+negro&pg=RA4-PA56&printsec=frontcover Futurist110 (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Todger as a given name[edit]

How common is "Todger" as a given name in the USA? What do Americans think "Todger" means? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 09:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you seen it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of Jack Nicklaus's grand-daughters has just married one Todger Strunk. DuncanHill (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is their Zola page. --Lambiam 16:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've lived in the United States my whole life. I've never heard the name since you just wrote it right now. I am but one data point, however. Perhaps one of the other 330ish million residents knows of another one. --Jayron 32 13:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto from this American. That's two data points. I would have thought that the meaning of "todger" was well enough known that no one would consider naming their kid that, though.--Khajidha (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way You're not the only person who found it interesting enough to comment on. --Jayron 32 13:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Todger" as in "every Todger, Dick and Willy"? --Lambiam 15:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC

The Artful Todger? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reportedly, Thomas Alfred Jones, VC, DCM, was affectionately nicknamed "Todger". --Lambiam 16:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine it as a British nickname, particularly in the services. DuncanHill (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re frequency question: If you are willing to download and open the zip file, you can get a list of all rare names given to babies in the US at https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/limits.html - this would tell you if there are more than a handful or not. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean anything to me. Not as a word, not as a name. --Amble (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amble, see Wiktionary:todger for enlightenment. Alansplodge (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted there, it's a Britishism. Not used in American slang. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary also seems to think it's a "Canadianism". Never heard that ever. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least one other fairly notable American of that name, Todger Anderson. He seems to be past middle age, while the common noun todger is only 34 according to the OED, hence Mr Anderson can't justly blame his parents. I can't say if the Strunks should have known better. --Antiquary (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How would the Strunks have known about this Britishism? It reminds me of how the Brits were supposedly so amused about the constant early-70s reportage about the "Watergate buggers". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm an American and I knew of it at the time this dude was born. And I was 11 at the time. --Khajidha (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you see it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If not for "Not the Noel Coward Song" from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life (1983), which contains the phrase "from the tiniest little tadger to the world's biggest prick", I'd assume Todger is a dog's name! — By the way, this much simpler link should give the same result: [1] —Tamfang (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which Prince Volkonsky?[edit]

Which Prince Volkonsky was at the theatre with Alexander I of Russia when they received news of the Fire in the Winter Palace? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no one at Volkonsky that stands out above the rest, from what I can see, though we can narrow it down a bit. Only two male Princes of the family are listed there that would have been alive in 1837. There was Sergey Volkonsky, who from 1825-1855 was in internal exile in Siberia. There was his brother Nikita Volkonsky was alive and could have been the one listed, however Nikita's article mentions that they had a son Alexander who served as a privy counselor, so it could also be him. That is NOT The Alexandr Volkonsky we have a Wikipedia article about, but is likely related, as Nikita and his descendents appear to have been Roman Catholic, a rarity among Russians. It could also be Pyotr Mikhailovich Volkonsky, who is of unknown connection to the other Volkonskys, who was both Adjutant General and a court minister to Alexander I at the time of the fire. --Jayron 32 13:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources, such as this one, describe the Prince Volkonsky accompanying the tsar at the theatre as the court minister (not "a" – there was only one), so it is rather certain he is P. M. Volkonsky. --Lambiam 17:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pyotr Mikhailovich was related to Sergey, being both his cousin and his brother-in-law;^[2][3] he was married to Sophia Grigoryevna (1785–1868), the only sister of Sergey.^[4]

Thanks' all. DuncanHill (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recess Appointments in the US[edit]

I understand that recess appointments rarely occur in the US anymore because one or both chambers of Congress will hold pro forma sessions to prevent them from being out of session.

However, from the article, one thing remains unclear to me.

Suppose President X legitimately appoints Person Y as Secretary of State when Congress is out of session. Say, two months later, Congress reconvenes. Can President X then nominate Secretary Y as Secretary of State and have the Senate confirm Secretary Y in advance to pre-empt (or prevent) the position from becoming vacant again at the end of the session? In other words, "promoting" Secretary Y from a recess appointment to a permanent secretary.

The article says this is possible — "But those positions will end at the end of the next legislative session unless Congress approves the appointment," but doesn't explain why since Article 2 doesn't mention this possibility.

User:SamUK 11:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recess appointments are a form of interim appointment. Basically it is an expedient to allow for functioning of the department while the Congress is in recess. Remember that prior to the 20th century, especially when the Constitution was written, it could take weeks to get Congress back into session as members from the far-flung corners of the Republic had to get on horses and/or in horse-drawn carriages and make the long journey to the Capital. The logistics of doing so (which also often involved making preparations for a cadre of household staff and the provisioning of the entire trip, etc. etc.) was daunting, so the need to be able to avoid having the machinery of the federal government come to a halt during recesses was necessary. The original intent was certainly less cynical than you are proposing; the Senate would be expected to confirm the recess appointment when they met next. This page has a rather exhaustive explanation of recess appointments, and should answer your many questions. --Jayron 32 12:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can a US Vice President serve simultaneously as a Cabinet Secretary?[edit]

Is there any reason why a Vice President couldn't legally be appointed to a second Cabinet role?

Say the Democrats had won a big Senate majority this time around, and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris decided she'd make a good Attorney General. Could she have served?

Have any Presidents ever seriously considered a (second) Cabinet role for their Vice Presidents?

User:SamUK 12:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The president gets to establish the make up of his own "Cabinet" in terms of who gets to sit at the table during Cabinet meetings, many (but not all) vice presidents have been members of the Presidnet's cabinet, and all of the recent ones have been, according to Vice President of the United States and Cabinet of the United States. They are not heads of executive departments (called in the original Constitution "Officers of the United States", a term which is more expansive than just the Department heads and also includes federal judges/justices, ambassadors, and other positions that require Senate confirmation) , which are also all members of the Cabinet. Heads of executive departments are mostly known as Secretaries (except for the Attorney General of the United States, who heads the United States Justice Department). I can't find any information on whether or not a president could nominate their VP to be a head of an executive department, but it only takes a few minutes going through the complete list of vice presidents (it's not THAT long) to definitively show that it has never happened before. This thread from Quora reached that conclusion as well.--Jayron 32 12:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of no constitutional reason why the Vice President, or even the President personally, could not directly lead any particular executive agency. There may be statutory reasons why this would be undesirable or even unlawful. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, there's no rule against it, but that doesn't mean it was ever done, or any reason to suspect it would ever be done. Just because there's no rule against it doesn't mean there is a reason to do so. --Jayron 32 17:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would kind of be contrary to the very purpose of the cabinet in the first place. The idea is that the president and vice president have other things to do, so these people are assigned responsibility for various things. --Khajidha (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the president has other things to do. The Vice President has only two jobs: To preside over the Senate, and to be alive in case the President dies. The first has devolved to the point where they basically never do so except on ceremonial occasions or when there needs to be a tie-breaking vote, and the second is not terribly taxing, and allows ample time for other pursuits. Hypothetically, the VP could serve as a department head, but in reality the President uses the VP, especially in recent decades, as a Minister without portfolio, to act as another "voice in the room" in Cabinet meetings without specific responsibility, or to head up certain ad hoc projects as the President sees fit. Prior to the mid-to-late 20th century however, the VP wasn't a Cabinet-level office, and was often left with little responsibilities, official or otherwise. As recently as the 1930s, John Nance Garner said of the office that it "wasn't worth a pitcher of warm piss", and the first VP, John Adams, who often was bored off his gourd sitting through Senate meetings with nothing to do, said of the office "the most insignificant Office that ever the Invention of Man contrived or his imagination conceived". Modern VPs have more to do, but their specific role is up to the whim of the President. --Jayron 32 19:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure, since the Senate (and Congress in general) seems to be opposed to actually doing anything, there's no need for anyone to preside over them. --Khajidha (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even that. See Presiding Officer of the United States Senate. By the mid 20th century they stopped presiding over the Senate entirely and really aren't expected to do that job anymore. Even before that the VP often found better things to do with their time, letting the President Pro Tempore do the job. this explains the evolution of the job over time. --Jayron 32 20:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is at least possible for one person to hold two cabinet positions at the same time. James Monroe was both Secretary of State and Secretary of War from 1814 to 1815. We have a List of people who have held multiple United States Cabinet-level positions, but all the other examples are without simultaneous overlap. --Amble (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

During the Civil War, Vice President Hannibal Hamlin was also an enlisted man in the Maine State Guard. --Amble (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did they use elephants too? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Only toy elephants. ;) Futurist110 (talk) 03:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Hannibal Hamlin's name is likely connected with the origin of the elephant as a symbol of his political party: [5]. --Amble (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]