Humanities desk
< September 27	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	Current desk >

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 28

History of the titles of "governor", "president", and "executive authority" in the United States

Observe this edit. I had added this section, thinking that since this was well known, those who knew which books to cite would then step in and add the citations. No one did so. Can anyone suggest here which sources should be cited? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Michael Hardy. The general principle that you should keep in mind is that you first find reliable sources verifying the content you want to add, and then you create references to those sources second, and then summarize those sources third, and then after all of that, you add the new well-referenced content fourth. In other words, you have put the cart before the horse. Go find the reliable sources. That is your job since you added the content. It is not the job of other editors, although there is a slim chance that someone with a good heart might help after seeing this conversation. In my opinion, that is not a viable way to build an encyclopedia with over 6.5 million articles. Cullen328 (talk) 06:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the Ref Desk is here to help people find sources, so Michael Hardy is asking for help in the right place. Hopefully some of us can supply them. Myself am drawing a blank because don't know enough about US government to know what terms to search. Maybe what you need might be in a history of how the government was set up? For example, though a more modern source would be better. [1] 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:56, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Michael_Hardy has been editing Wikipedia since 2002 (though predominantly Math and Physics topics), so he presumably knows Cullen328's verities... AnonMoos (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Hardy, @Cullen328 Cullen is right; many new editors write what they know and then cast about for sources. I find it interesting when a (usually new) editor will put a bunch of info into a draft, omit the sources (maybe they never existed) and then get upset or confused when challenged. Often, an experienced helper will then ask "But how do you know all of that? Where did that information come from? Whatever your sources, cite them. If you don't have the sources, omit the material".

I'm trying to imagine a valid case where an editor knows that something is true but can't find the reference. (I'm not considering "The sky is blue" here.)

Yes, there are places to get help here on WP. Maybe asking how to include XYZ info and where a ref can be found, with both parts of that in the question, is better than putting the info into the draft uncited. Still, I'm glad it's being worked out, and it's not the end of the world. David10244 (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I write an article, my draft originally consists of a list of bare URLs linking to reliable, independent sources that devote significant coverage to the topic. Then, I fill in citation templates to turn the URLs into complete bibliographic references. At this point, my draft is nothing but a detailed reference list. Then, I start adding keywords and key phrases before each reference to remind me of their main points. I might move them around a bit into chronological order or some other logical order. Only then do I start writing prose, summarizing what each of those sources say, without adding any of my own personal knowledge or interpretation. I refine my prose to try to shape a coherent narrative, but I try very hard to avoid any trace of original research. Cullen328 (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328: As I said, I thought there would be some who would very quickly step in and add suitable sources, since the facts are universally known to those who study the history of that era. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EO can tell you where the terms "president"[2] and "governor"[3] arose. I'm not aware of an American office called "executive authority". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Executive authority" isn't an office, but the U.S. Constitution uses that term in Art. I, sec. 2: "When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies", and Art. IV, sec. 2: "A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The reason they would use that term is that it's up to the states what specific title to give their respective executives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In North American terms, "governor" comes from the colonial government in the Thirteen Colonies, when each colony had a governor who was the representative of the king. Canada still has a Governor General and the Provinces each have a Lieutenant Governor, although their role is now largely ceremonial. As for "president", the Founding Fathers may have been influenced by the speaker of the French parlement who was addressed as Monsieur le Président. Our President (government title) article says that a suggested address for George Washington was "Elected Highness". Alansplodge (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

whence hast thou then thy truth, But from him, or his Angels president In every province
— Milton, Paradise Regained (1671)

Jamestown had a council which elected it's president. Some colonial councils had elected a president. Franklin's "Short Hints" for the Albany Congress suggested "Governor General" which was changed to "President General". The fathers had some history of english use in their governments before the revolution, first state constitutions, and the convention.

In convention i think Pinckney's Plan presented May 29th was the first mention of title for a single executive: The Executive Power of the United States shall be vested in a President of the United States of America which shall be his stile & his title shall be His Excellency which seems to transpose title and style. There was some crossing out and inserting "Governor" and "Executive Authority" for the states and clause mentioned; and "Governour" and "President" for the federal executive in the work of the Committee of Detail in the Randolph and Wilson drafts with some in Rutledge's handwriting. I tried to follow the changes in Max Farrand's The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 and list here but gave up. And after a the delegates seemingly settled on "President" Alexander Hamilton would then propose lifetime-serving national "Governor".fiveby(zero) 17:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A reference for the origin of governors in the USA is:

Ferguson, Margaret, ed. (2006). The Executive Branch of State Government: People, Process, and Politics. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO. p. 14. ISBN 978-1851097715.

Alansplodge (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit implies or assumes that the constitution could have prescribed the title of the executive in the various state governments which preceded the convention.

The officer usually preserved the colonial name of "governor;" but in New Hampshire, Delaware, and Pennsylvania, he was called the "president"—which name had also in a few instances been employed in the colonial period. Morey, William C. (1893). The First State Constitutions. p. 25.

note also on the opposite page New Jersey.—"Governor" and "President of the Council.", but i think Governor (United_States)#History would benefit more from an expansion along the lines of the various forms of executive in the colonial governments and debate on the nature of the executive in the development of the state constitutions, with the title as additional detail. I'll add to Alansplodge's suggestion Kruman, Marc W (1997). Between authority & liberty : state constitution making in revolutionary America.. fiveby(zero) 17:16, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: Article I, Section 2, Clause 4 of the Constitution of the United States says "When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies." This term "Executive Authority" means the governor in states where the head of government of the state is called the governor, the president in states where he is called the president, or the executive council in Pennsylvania. Article IV, Section 2, Clause 2 says "A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime." It has the same meaning here. They did not use the term "governor" or "president" or "exective council" because this was to apply to all of the states regardless of which title they used to refer to their executive authority. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. "Executive Authority" there is a description, not a title. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Book written from both ends

Let's say you have a blank notebook. You open it on the first page and start writing some text over the next several pages. Then you skip to the last page, flip the notebook upside down and start writing a different text. Is there a name for this practice? I'm looking for a scholarly term that I could use to describe old manuscripts that were written in this way, from both ends of one codex. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it's a very common expression, but such manuscripts are sometimes said to be written tête-bêche. Examples of usage: [4], [5]. --Antiquary (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many book sellers have a category of "double-sided books." Sometimes it is two unrelated books basically bound back-to-back. Other times it is related such as having the same story told from two perspectives. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 13:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some people have nostalgic memories of "Ace Doubles" which were printed that way. AnonMoos (talk) 13:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other people have sizeable numbers of such volumes (which may be first editions of one or both titles) in their collections, and regularly read or refer to them both for pleasure and as part of bibliographic documentation. Just sayin' :-). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.227.236 (talk) 20:23, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've acquired at least 3 or 4 of the science fiction Ace Doubles over the years; I would not have any interest at all in the westerns and mystery novels... AnonMoos (talk) 23:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia article is apparently Dos-à-dos binding... AnonMoos (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Never knew the origin of the square-dancing call "Do-si-do" before... AnonMoos (talk)

Reminds me of the stamp collector who had an incredibly rare tête-bêche, i.e. two stamps joined together, one printed upside down. The collector thought, "Ah, I can make more money selling these separately", so he separated them, and only then realised what he had done. 92.31.142.179 (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tête-bêche, I like it. Thank you all, and Antiquary in particular! — Kpalion^(talk) 17:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see this frequently with bilingual publications in English and Spanish. Typically they are mass-produced booklets or pamphlet type softcovers. Elizium23 (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

British casualties on the Western Front WW2 ?

And what caused such small losses of Great Britain on the Western Front BB2? In total, 286k of the British died, but the wiki says only 40k of the dead on the Western Front, I understand that England also had the Atlantic, Mediterranean and Pacific fronts, but after June 44, shouldn’t the Western European front be the most bloody for the British? 37.145.60.154 (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably had somethig to do with the large numbers of American troops at the time. In 1944-5, Americans accounted for 70% of troops and casualties for the Allies in that area.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also the short duration, less than a year. The North African campaign, although generally less intense, dragged on for three years. Alansplodge (talk) 21:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]