Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 August 10

Can natural-born U.S. citizens who meet the residency requirement (for the U.S. Presidency) and who currently have dual citizenship run for the U.S. Presidency? Also, if so, doesn't this make a complete and total mockery out of the "natural-born citizen" requirement for the U.S. Presidency? Futurist110 (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the first question: it doesn't say "must be a natural-born US citizen and only a US citizen", does it?

On the second: you are asking for an opinion. We don't do opinions here. --69.159.9.219 (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The US Supreme Court has consistently held since 1898 that anyone born in the US (excluding children of: foreign occupying forces, foreign dignitaries) is a natural born citizen, and since 1939 that such persons are eligible to be president (assuming they also meet the other requirements). The courts specifically rejected that the potential presidents parents' citizenship matters, but our articles don't mention any addressing of dual citizenship. Neither the constitution nor federal statute forbids a president from having dual citizenship, as far as I can tell. See also: Natural-born-citizen clause, United States presidential eligibility legislation. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Cruz fell into this category until he repudiated his dual Canadian citizenship early in the 2016 Presidential campaign. Although this was discussed in connection with his candidacy, there were few legal experts claiming that his dual citizenship was inherently disqualifying. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the U.S. Supreme Court has not held any formal decision or opinion on the matter. As noted in the Wikipedia article Natural-born-citizen clause, " the Supreme Court has never directly addressed the question of a specific presidential or vice-presidential candidate's eligibility as a natural-born citizen." Until such time as an actual challenge to the clause is tested in court, there isn't any way to determine how it is to be interpreted. There are legal scholars who have rendered various opinions on its meaning and scope. However, any legal question that has not been tested in the courts remains an open question. It may never be answerable from a judicial point of view, many scholars see it as a political question rather than legal one, see Justiciability, point 4; which seems to disqualify the issue from judicial review. --Jayron32 10:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite, Jayron. "in 1939, the U.S. Supreme Court stated in its decision in Perkins v. Elg that a person born in America and raised in another country was a natural born citizen, and specifically stated that they could 'become President of the United States'." That case regarded a person born in the United States to resident alien parents, who was then raised abroad. What the supreme court has never done is make a ruling directly regarding an actual, not hypothetical, presidential candidate of questionable citizenship. Someguy1221 (talk) 15:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If he lived all or most of his life in another country, he would fail the residency requirement. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All, yes. Most, no. He or she could easily live 30 years abroad, than 15 years in the US, and fulfil the residency requirement. Or even live 55 years abroad, then 15 years in the US, with the age of some candidates. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14, actually, and you're right that it depends on how you define "most". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And even if the courts were to rule in favor of such a candidate, the voting public might decide otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's news. You mean, not all candidates get elected? Curious ...  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC) [reply]

At least half of all candidates fail to get elected. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How do you elect half a candidate and what do they do with the other half? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:52, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's the half that spends all his time fund-raising. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only half a mockery. —Tamfang (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A question has been asked at Talk:WikiProject Military history about the whereabouts of a place called Transpolitania, apparently a town in North Africa, which is mentioned in three WP articles, B. H. Liddell Hart, Erwin Rommel and Rommel myth. Can anybody solve the conundrum? Alansplodge (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like it was a typo of Tripolitania (probably from somebody thinking of Transylvania), and that the typo was copied several times. If there's no source that gives a tangible, distinct location, I suggest treating it as such. StuRat (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crosschecking search engine data about Edwin Rommel's biographies the typo was first printed in "The Rommel Papers" by ‎Sir Basil Henry Liddell Hart - 1953. It reappears once in 1986. --Askedonty (talk) 19:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However the quote in the B. H. Liddell Hart article is attributed to Martin Kitchen. --Askedonty (talk) 19:37, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget copied in Wikipedia, too. So, it looks like multiple sources, but they may all boil down to a single source with a typo. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at worse it would be a question of literary consonance ( and typos that made it to the top: how-typos-became-okay ) . --Askedonty (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input everyone. User:Askedonty, do you have a link or anything concrete to support the typo in "The Rommel Papers", so that we can amend the articles? Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if we can do that, other than leaving a "(sic)" where it is in a quotation. The typo is obvious: google ngram does not find "Transpolitania" whereas the short list of books it can be located in all are about Rommel and the oldest is "The Rommel Papers". I cross-checked with a search on Rommel tripolitania, which did not find "The Rommel Papers" but new searches including selected keywords such as "Cyrenaica" or "Tunisia" a.s.o, taken from the resulting set of results then bring the same sets, including now "the Papers", in good rank. It's nonetheless not a typo proven externally to the encyclopedia.. --Askedonty (talk) 18:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hate for Wikipedia to perpetuate and further reinforce an apparent typo. How about including the typo, and adding, in parens "(sic, an apparent typo of Tripolitania)" ? StuRat (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that I would get emotional about it. Certainly one day some reader could and would raise doubt about the serious of Wikipedia. If it has been soldier's jargon by Cpt. Hart originally rather than a typo Wikipedia will not fully get rid of uncertainty before it's made clear somehow in some reliable sources. --Askedonty (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me find a source which names all twenty two children of Englishman Thomas Bambridge and his Tahitian-Irish wife Maraea O'Connor? This was a pretty famous family in Tahiti next to the former ruling Pomare family and the Salmon family; one of their daughter Suzanne was a subject of a painting by Gaugain, a grandson was on the Mutiny of the Bounty and Tabu and another grandson was a mayor of Papeete. These are the most comprehensive list I've found so far [1] and [2], but the number doesn't add up nor are they particularly reliable. We can guess that some of theme were stillborn and never given name but I need a source to back up that assumption. This may require searches in French sources as well.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The French sources I'm seeing all uniformly say 17 children (which agrees with your second source), but none lists the names.

• [3] (geneology website. 17 children, no names given.)
• [4] (geneology website. Names one daughter, Mathilda Fara Bambridge 1848-1918, and her descendants.)
• [5] (newspaper article from July 2006 about a family reunion of the descendants. Mentions "17 children, 12 of them girls", but names none.)
• [6] (blog. biography of Amelia Elisa Bambridge, 1835-1905, said to be the eldest of the 17 children.) 184.147.126.239 (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone identify the painting used on the cover of this book? It might even be mentioned in the book's frontmatter, but no hablo French. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using Google Translate, it looks like the title means "THE CHRISTIAN ARTIST: Theories of the religious image in seventeenth-century France (Aesthetic)." As to the painting (assuming it's not original to the book), that could take some searching. But it would be a "Madonna and Child" kind of thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's "St Luke Painting the Madonna" by Pierre Mignard [7] Valiantis (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings of St Luke painting the Virgin Mary are a thing in art. Asmrulz (talk) 22:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merci beaucoup! I could identify the subject easily enough (early Christianity is kind of "my thing," as they say), but the fact that it was a painting of a painting struck me as unique. I'm rather art-illiterate, as you may have guessed. I'll mark this one

Resolved

Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A missing piece is an illustration of the artist who's painting the other artist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]