Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

October 4

M-class fireworks

Recently I read the phrase "M-class fireworks" referring to M-80 (explosive), M-100 (explosive), M-250, M-1000, etc. Where does the "M" come from and what defines these classifications? I couldn't put my finger on a source. Thanks, Beland (talk) 06:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

If you read the first article the second reference in the article says United States Army Field Manual No. 3.23-30, Grenades and Pyrotechnic Signals, Chapter 5-5d, September 2003. M for military and 80 for volume equal to 80 grains of ordnance gunpowder (known today as "black powder"). Black powder as used in muzzle-loading rifles and pistols is still measured by "flapjack" in grains. Eighty grains would be an appropriate charge for deer hunting with a 50-caliber rifle. That said, I'm not convinced the US Army Field Manual says this and this forum discussion questions it for practical reasons [1] Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec) According to several "unreliable" sources, including our own article M-80 (explosive) (see ref [2]), the M stands for "Military" and the number N for an explosive power equivalent to N grains of ordnance gunpowder. The designations are used by the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, but are presumably older. Our article refers to the 2003 edition of the United States Army Field Manual No. 3.23-30, which I could not find online.  --Lambiam 12:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

United States Army Field Manual No. 3.23-30 p. 62 (2000) says nothing about "M for military", black powder measuring, or the appropriate load for .50 cal muzzle-loading rifles. fiveby(zero) 19:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

The term appears to have been already in use in 1958 ([2] – although not visible in the snippet).  --Lambiam 12:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

MIL-STD-1464A Army Nomenclature System (sorry, can't find a better link)

• 5.1.1 Number. The primary portion of an Army-Type Designator shall be a number of a nonsignificant nature, sequentially assigned, that is non-repetitive within an item category but may be repetitive in assignment between item categories.
• 5.1.3.2 Type classified (M). The letter M used as a prefix shall designate an item that has been type classified standard.

DETONATION SIMULATOR, EXPLOSIVE, M80 Is i think the designation according to that standard, tho i see lots of variations. M means a standard item and 80 an insignificant numbering. Also spaces or hyphens shall not be used, so it's M80, not M-80. fiveby(zero) 20:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Tho M1 carbine cites International Encyclopedia of Military History for "M" is the designation for "Model" beginning in 1925.[3], but the source does not explicitly state that "M" stands for "Model". fiveby(zero) 20:48, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

If the "80" is a sequentially assigned number, what happened to ..., M78, M79, M81, M82, ...?  --Lambiam 07:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Some ideas never get off the drawing board, thus there was a Boeing 707, 727, 737, 747 and 757, but no 717. Conversely, at the War Office during the war there were ten doors labelled respectively MI1 up to MI10. Only MI5 and MI6 remain. 2A00:23C6:2403:E900:11BF:FF75:9819:DE51 (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The 717 exists, just not till around the 777 era. So only 797 doesn't exist by now. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

VP as acting POTUS

Trump is currently hospitalized, though he's continuing to work remotely. If I understand it, if he becomes temporarily unable to carry out his duties, Pence becomes acting POTUS until Trump is able to serve again. Question: if that happens, is Pence also still VP and President of the Senate? If not, what happens to Pence's tie-breaking role in the event of a deadlocked Senate vote? Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DDAF (talk) 20:28, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Well first off, it's not automatic. Trump can appoint Pence as Acting President himself, or the Cabinet can vote on whether the President is incapacitated. But yes, Pence could become Acting President under the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. My understanding of the Constitutional text is that the Vice President who becomes Acting President is still the Vice President. The Vice President as Acting President is merely discharging "the powers and duties" of the Office of President. Because he is still Vice President, I believe he is still responsible for discharging his own powers and duties as well. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The VP doesn't have too many Powers and Duties. Constitutionally, he has only three: To preside over the Senate, which they basically never do anymore except on ceremonial cases, to break tie votes in said body, which is rare enough, and to be available to step in in the case the President becomes incapacitated (or dead). That's it. Many VPs have lamented the worthlessness of the job, from John Adams himself, who said of the position he held, that it was "the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived" --Jayron32 12:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Article One of the United States Constitution, section3, clause 5: "The Senate shall chuse [sic] their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of the President of the United States." This would seem to say that he can't be both Acting President and Senate President at the same time. Rmhermen (talk) 00:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Surprisingly even though this obviously is something that seemed relevant recently, I can't seem to find much commentary. These two [4] [5] which suggest the VP can't cast a tie-breaking vote when they are acting president. But the first offers no explanation. The second quotes Brian Kalt, but I have no idea where they got that. It's Medium so I'm doubtful they spoke directly to Kalt and there's nothing in the article suggesting they did. They do quote this source [6] which is written by Kalt, but I don't see any claim about the acting president not serving as VP in that article. There's also this StackExchange [7] discussion which highlights the same paragraph as Rmhermen. Nil Einne (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Coffin story

I remember reading a story in school, written by what Tom Lehrer would call "Chekhov, or one of that crowd". The protagonist gets home to his flat after a late night of drinking, and finds there is a coffin in the middle of his room. He freaks out slightly at this portent, thinks he is hallucinating, feels the coffin and finds that it seems quite solid. Disturbed, he runs over to his friend's flat--which also has a coffin in it. Repeat a couple times, and then there is a surprise ending that I won't spoil for those who don't know the story. I may have some details wrong.

Can anyone identify? I had no luck with web search for Chekhov and coffins. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DDAF (talk) 22:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Anton Chekhov: A Night in the Cemetery. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! That wasn't quite it, but it was close enough that I was able to find the right one. It is "A Night of Horror", another story in the same collection. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:DDAF (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

That is where the link points to: A Night of Horror in the collection A Night in the Cemetery. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

October 5

Operation Storm?

During the Operation Storm that pretty much ended the Croatian War of Independence in Croatia's victory, if the Serb leadership had not ordered the population of hundreds of thousands of Croatian Serbs to evacuate the territory being occupied by the Republic of Serbian Krajina and they decided to stay, would they have been harmed by the Croatian Army? Or would the Croatian government have taken significant steps to protect them, since the West were carefully watching and monitoring the situation?

Asking in case Azerbaijan recaptures its occupied territory and the Armenians refuse to flee en masse. Same goes for a scenario in which Georgia successfully reconquers South Ossetia and Abkhazia. StellarHalo (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

My educated guess would be that the Croatian Army would not have so much harmed them other than by possibly expelling them en masse. The Croatian Army might have created a sense of plausible deniability by allowing a relatively large fraction (25%? 33%? 50%?) of the Croatian Serbs to stay put, though--similar to the limited expulsions that Israel conducted during its war of independence, which allowed a huge number of Arabs to remain in the Galilee, among some other places in Israel. Futurist110 (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

BTW, I noticed that you forgot to mention the possibility of Ukraine reconquering the Donbass Republics here. This is something that Ukrainian nationalists would in all likelihood love to do--followed by a forcible mass expulsion of these republics' residents' pro-Russian inhabitants (comprising 40% or more of these republics' total population) to Russia. Futurist110 (talk) 06:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

This can only be answered by speculation. My educated opinion: if there is anything we can learn from history, it is that this could have gone any way (other than kumbaya).  --Lambiam 07:14, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how Croatia is too relevant, but the situation between Armenians and Azerbaijanis was rather bitter even before the fall of the Soviet Union, and I doubt that too many ethnic Armenians would be willing to live under Azerbaijani rule... AnonMoos (talk) 02:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Ethnic tension between Croats and Serbs existed even during the Austro-Hungarian Empire. This continued through the volatile politics of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and became an all-out genocidal war during World War II. Both Independent State of Croatia and Chetniks committed genocidal atrocities before they both were defeated by communist Yugoslav Partisans and the Red Army at the war's end. Yugoslav Wars were the latest in the history of a long ethnic conflict and Croatia's ultimate triumph (with the exception of failing to annex the territories of Bosnian Croats) allowed it to sweep World War II collaboration and defeat under the rug and built monuments to those who have been massacred after the Bleiburg repatriations. The fiasco with Croatian Wikipedia is one example of that. With most Serbs gone, Croatia is now a member of the European Union and the free world. Operation Storm has been officially celebrated by the Croatian government every year and since it is an internationally accepted solution to ethnic conflicts, Azerbaijan is now unsurprisingly trying to replicate Croatia's success. StellarHalo (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I know about the Yugoslav wars (I was following them in the newspapers and on NPR as they happened), but I fail to see why the Croatia situation would determine what will happen in Nagorno-Karabakh, or vice versa. AnonMoos (talk) 04:50, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, for starter, the success of Operation Storm set a precedent for other countries to take similar actions against a breakaway region. I was actually surprised that the Serb leadership asked the Serb population to flee since it meant they decided to outright give up the region in perpetuity leaving no possible room for future claim and making any allegation of organized ethnic cleansing of Serbs impossible to prove in court. I am wondering if Azerbaijan has similar success, would the Armenia ordered Armenians to evacuate too? If not, would Azerbaijan take steps to try not to commit atrocities and protect the Armenians like how Croatia reached the Erdut Agreement with the remaining Serbs or would all remaining Armenians in the region be screwed at that point? IIRC, prior to Operation Storm, Croatian government even specifically told the Serbs not to flee. StellarHalo (talk) 07:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

If Croatia were to allow Serbs to peacefully remain, it would embarrass the Serb leadership after its claims of persecution and cleansing. This was not unlikely, not least given Croatia's reliance on political and military support from international organizations. Serb leadership may also have been less interested in obtaining a possible court victory than an insured propaganda victory, in face of a definite military loss. This exodus has since been portrayed by far-right extremists in Serbia as forced expelling by Croatian forces and promoted as casus belli for a new war. 93.136.178.2 (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

United States Election - A Split Electoral College

A hypothetical scenario here that I hope doesn't come to pass that I suppose could equally apply to Joe Biden - I use Trump as the example because he is currently ill with the coronavirus.

President Trump is currently ill with Covid-19. In the event that either he dies before the election is held or the election is held and Trump wins, but subsequently dies, what happens next? Is this an issue for the Republican Party to resolve or is it a matter of broader national concern. In either scenario the outcome of the election is a republican victory (either decided on or near Election Day, or as determined by the courts).

From what I understand if he passes before the election, the Republican National Committee would meet and decide a successor. It could be argued, however, that this isn't a legitimate decision as it hasn't been decided upon by the primary process. In the event of Trump's death after winning, the President-Elect would presumably switch from Trump to Mike Pence, the Vice-President elect. If the electoral college meets, however, and it cannot agree who the legitimate president-elect is - either because it disagrees with the RNC nominee or it is under pressure to nominate somebody similar to Trump from voters - does the issue go to the Supreme Court (the confirmation hearings could well be disrupted by senators increasingly becoming ill and could lead to a deadlocked court) or is it purely an issue for the republican party.

Likewise, should the decision go to Congress, do they only determine the outcome of the election through the House voting, or do they determine who the legitimate winner of the election is.

I guess my question is what happens when it is known which party has won, but not which individual? --Andrew 12:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

If it is after the election is held, but before inauguration, the Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies, to wit " If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President." If he dies before the electoral college has met, then states are free to figure out how to award the electors he may have received before he died; it's likely they will just go to whoever the party selects to replace him. --Jayron32 12:48, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Healy on Carson - "although a Unionist, he was never un-Irish"

Tim Healy said of Edward Carson "although a Unionist, he was never un-Irish". I need to find the original source of the quotation, thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

"Although a Unionist," said Mr. Tim Healy to me of him, "he never was un-Irish." Not sure how complete Volume I was at the time of Marjoribanks' death, but the language doesn't look like it was finished by an editor. fiveby(zero) 18:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks @Fiveby:. Marjoribanks had completed what was published as Carson the Advocate by the time of his death. Ian Colvin continued the work as Carson the Statesman

References

Sex and the City - "stick insect"

Did the lead characters in Sex and the City have an unkind nickname for Natasha, the character played by Bridget Moynahan? Part of my mind thinks it was "the stick insect", but I may be remembering The Growing Pains of Adrian Mole (TV series) (which does have a character with that nickname). -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 18:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I associated "Stick-insect" with Robert Maxwell's daughter-in-law Pandora. However the actual association appears to be that the son of Stick-Insect, Adrian's father's mistress, is called Maxwell, while Pandora is Adrian's girlfriend. 2A00:23C6:2403:E900:11BF:FF75:9819:DE51 (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Apparently Carrie used the nickname "the idiot stick figure with no soul" for her.^[8]  --Lambiam 11:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, that would be it. Thank you for finding that. I suppose I'm glad my memory was mostly right, but sad that I've wasted a perfectly good part of my brain on such garbage. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 11:22, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Moving statue in Georgia

Hi, I've seen a video about a moving statue in Georgia. Depending on the source, it's called "a man and a woman" or "impossible love". But it seems like there's no Wikipedia article about it. Would anyone be interested in creating one? 1.53.37.115 (talk) 19:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

We would need reliable sources before considering an article. The sources would also have to shew notability. We would also need to know which Georgia was involved. DuncanHill (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

It's the country Georgia. I just typed "moving statue georgia impossible love" (without quotes) into Google and found this page which describes the statue and has a video, and identifies the sculptor as Tamara Kvesitadze. Her Wikipedia article mentions the statue briefly and cites this article from The Independent about it. For what my opinion is worth, I'd say it's notable enough for its own article. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

More news sources: [9], [10], [11].  --Lambiam 11:11, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

October 6

Question about an amendment that strips the US Senate of all of its powers

The US Constitution explicitly states in Article V that no US state will be stripped of its equal representation in the US Senate without its consent. However, what if there will be a new US constitutional amendment that would keep the US Senate intact as well as the US Senate's structure of two US Senators for each and every US state but nevertheless transfer all of the US Senate's powers (such as helping to pass legislation and ratifying treaties) to the US House of Representatives? So, basically, the US Senate will remain intact--as will its structure--but it will become completely or almost completely powerless, similar to the current British House of Lords, I suppose. Can such a change to the US Constitution be accomplished through the regular US constitutional amendment process or would such a change require the unanimous consent of all US states?

I mean, on the one hand, the US Constitution does not explicitly make the US Senate's powers unamendable; on the other hand, though, one can't help but wonder whether the US Senate's powers are implicitly unamendable as a part of the explicit unamendability of the two-US-Senators-per-US-state rule (unless of course all US states actually consent to this, which is extremely unlikely). A US Senate stripped of all or almost all its powers would deprive small US states of a federal US legislative chamber where they have a disproportionate say and influence in the making of United States public policy, after all. Futurist110 (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Where have you seen such an idea? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Here: https://jeremysheff.com/2018/10/17/article-v-the-senate-and-the-house-of-lords-option/ Futurist110 (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Whoever that character is, he lacks a basic understanding of how the USA was formed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

How so? Futurist110 (talk) 07:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I seem to recall having a similar discussion some weeks or months ago. Suffice it to say that the general understanding is that, provided the Amendment process in Article Five of the United States Constitution is obeyed, any part of the Constitution may be amended in any way. This includes Article Five itself, the Amendment process itself, and the portions of the Constitution that Article Five treats as so-called "entrenched clauses". The entire Senate can be abolished by Amendment, and indeed, the entire Constitution may be replaced by... basically anything provided the Amendment process is followed. This would be "legal" within the scope of U.S. constitutional law. Really, consider the structural changes that flow from the Eleventh, Twelfth, Seventeenth (in particular), Twentieth, Section 2 of the Twenty-first, and Twenty-third Amendment to the United States Constitution. Those were all valid Amendments no matter how significantly they upset the structure of the Federal government or federalism within the United States. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 03:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The thing is, though, that Article V is quite specific that no US state may be stripped of its equal representation in the US Senate without its consent. The question is, does it implicitly go further and forbid any reduction in the powers of the US Senate without the consent of all US states? What do you think? Futurist110 (talk) 05:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Whether a constitional prohibition is implied, should this ever come to pass, will be a matter for the Supreme Court to mull over.  --Lambiam 11:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, it's worth remembering that as our article says Article Five of the United States Constitution#Constitutional clauses shielded from amendment, whether the Article Five provision requiring the consent of affected states for amendments which affect their equal representation can itself be amended without requiring the consent of all states is disputed with a common view being that it can especially since it makes no attempt to entrench itself Entrenched clause#United States. But since this itself is disputed and is only likely to be resolved by it actually happening, more obscure questions like whether you could make a Senate who's only purpose is to vote on which turkey to pardon at Thanksgiving while making a Senit which takes over the functions of the Senate but only gives one Senitor each to Alaska and Hawaii, is not something anyone can answer with any definiteness although possibly some people have offered their views. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

In theory, the Senate could be contracted to 50, or expanded to 150, as long as each state retains its equality in the Senate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

What gives you the idea that any state would willingly give up its equal representation in the Senate and/or water down the Senate's authority? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Liberal US states might agree to this as a matter of justice and fairness. Futurist110 (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Where have you seen anything that suggests any state is interested in doing this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Just as a matter of semantic and clearly not beeing English my first language, but I see in this phrasing something of a catch: "no US state may be stripped of its equal representation in the US Senate without its consent" means for me that as long as its 'representation' remains equal to that of all other states it has no fixed scope, and if you succeed in limiting the power of all representations in the same measure at the same time, you can strip all power from them without infringement of Article V. What the letter of Article V seems to protect is the equality of the representation, not the representation itself or any power tied to that representation. 2003:F5:6F0E:4500:3D1B:A8CB:F3B2:4524 (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC) Marco PB

The idea was to provide a forum in which small states had an equal voice with big states. If you take away the authority of the Senate, then that premise no longer works. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:55, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Technically speaking, though, they would still have a forum--just a powerless forum. Futurist110 (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Which is why it won't happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

In 1987 Hendrik Hertzberg wrote in The New Republic this proposal: "The Senate shall be composed of one member from each State and an equal number of members chosen at large by single transferable vote." This would preserve equal representation (though the transition would be tricky) while making the Senate more proportional and more diverse. —Tamfang (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I think the claim that it would "preserve equal representation" is debatable at best. I don't suggest debating it here, though. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 06:23, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

British ladies named Feodorowna

Reading a biography of Anthony Blunt, I came across one Feodorowna Cecilia Wellesley (1838-1920), Viscountess Bertie of Thame, wife of Francis Bertie, 1st Viscount Bertie of Thame. (Her page in The Peerage).

Feodorovna is a Russian patronymic, meaning "daughter of Feodor", and patronymics are never used as given names, but sit between the given name and the surname.

While searching for some information about her curious name, I also found another case: Feodorowna Philippa Yorke (1864-1934).

I'm wondering whether these very British ladies were named after some notable Russian woman with the Feodorovna patronymic. Maria Feodorovna (Dagmar of Denmark) might be a candidate for the second case, but she was born 9 years after the first case. But why wouldn't Dagmar/Maria's given name rather than her patronymic have been the name that was honoured in this way? It would be like naming your son Nikolayevich in honour of Leo Tolstoy.-- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:35, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Maria Feodorovna (Sophie Dorothea of Württemberg) died in 1828. DuncanHill (talk) 02:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

She was born as the daughter of a certain Friedrich, not Theodor, so why did they (the Russian Orthodox Church?) give her a Fyodor-derived patronymic?  --Lambiam 10:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Not sure. They did the same with the wives of Nicholas I of Russia (Alexandra Feodorovna, originally Charlotte of Prussia) and Nicholas II of Russia (Alexandra Feodorovna, originally Alix of Hesse), and maybe others. I think it had to do with having a consort with a Russian-sounding patronymic being considered more suitable. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:05, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand Feodorovna was used for female converts to Russian Orthodoxy marrying into the Romanov family in honour of the Feodorovskaya Icon of the Mother of God, the patron icon of the Romanovs. DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Who'd have thunk that a family could have a patron icon? Do you have a reference for this? – then we can add it to the article on the icon and add some links.  --Lambiam 23:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

No reference that we could really use - it's mentioned at Talk:Patronymic#Tsarinas_named_Feodorovna, and in a Quora thread here. Following the links from those I found Feodor Abramovich Lopukhin who was called Hilarion, but his name was changed to Feodor on becoming the Tsar's father-in-law. DuncanHill (talk) 14:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Feodorowna Philippa Yorke was the daughter of Sophia Georgiana Robertina Wellesley, the younger sister of Feodorowna Cecilia Wellesley, and was most likely named for her maternal aunt. The Peerage website says that the father of the two Wellesley sisters, the 1st Earl Cowley, was at the time of their births the Secretary of Legation of Stuttgart. This does give a possible link to Maria Feodorovna, née Sophie Dorothea of Württemberg. 58.6.214.57 (talk) 12:58, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This work is giving Feodorowna for a niece of Victoria, but the only i find that does. fiveby(zero) 00:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I suspect that search result is her mother, also a Feodora. Note that we call both mother and daughter "Feodora", not "Feodorowna". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Oops, the half-sister not a niece, often "Anna Feodorowna", and not nearly so very British as your Wellesley. fiveby(zero) 14:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

"Lady Feodore Wellesley" also seems common. This article refers to her as both Feodore and Feodorowna. fiveby(zero) 00:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• Before this gets archived, I thank those who assisted me in my so-far fruitless quest. We may have to track down a family biography of the Wellesleys, if such a beast exists, to discover what was in the parents' minds when they named their daughters Feodorowna. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:41, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

(Law, Journalism) Journals' liability in publishing "lies" on Trump

Some fellow Hebrew-Wiki editors and I have been having an argument over the NYTime's credibility in exposing Trump's tax avoidance and chronic losses. I argued that the Times' article is trustworthy because, among other things, it could be sued for defamation if its claims turn out to be false. Another Wikipedian dismissed this argument, saying Trump couldn't sue them even if they lied, because that would force him to publicly disclose his taxes, which for whatever reason he refuses.

1. Can Trump sue the Times without publicly disclosing his taxes?
2. If so, could he do it without publicly addmitting that the trial is taking place behind closed doors specifically to avoid disclosure?
3. Regardless, is there a reason he can't/won't sue them after his last term?
4. What other mechanisms can he use against defamation when a lawsuit is infeasible?

On behaf of the entire Hebrew-Wiki community, Thanks! Veritas94 (talk) 12:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This is America. Anyone can sue anyone about anything. Whether he will sue requires a crystal ball, which Wikipedia does not possess. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

So my understanding of your discussion is that the threat of a defamation lawsuit means the NYT story has credibility. There are two reasons why this is a bit mistaken, both requiring an understanding of libel law in the United States. First, it is not the case that Trump could sue simply because the information is incorrect: As a public figure, Trump would need to demonstrate in court that the NY Times published the false story with actual malice, which is a very, very high bar. Secondly, as the other Wikipedian points out, it's very likely that Trump would need to disclose his tax returns in discovery. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that they would be public as a result; confidential discovery is possible, but it's the exception, and there would be numerous third-party motions filed very quickly demanding the release of the records, and it's very likely the court would find it in the public interest that the discovery records be open to public inspection. In short, it would be strategically fatal for Trump to sue.

A third point (or perhaps a rephrasing of the second point) would also be to refer to the Streisand effect, which to my understanding plays a major role in why politicians very rarely sue newspapers nowadays. It's much, much more beneficial to the politicians and their campaigns for negative press to just get ignored or forgotten (like most negative press is). The cost of litigation, as well, would be tremendous. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

And to give point-by-point responses to your questions:

1. Theoretically, yes. In practice, I doubt it.
2. I don't understand the question. If you're asking whether the entire proceeding could be subject to a protective order, then no. With exceptions for certain sensitive criminal, juvenile, or national security-related litigation, the presumption in the United States is that litigation is a public affair and that it's in the public's interest to know what's taking place and have access to the proceedings.
3. The actual malice issue is too high a bar to make it worthwhile, the negative publicity of any lawsuit would be worse than just letting everyone forget about the story, and it's unlikely that a victory would remedy any damage in any meaningful way. Additionally, the statute of limitations on a lot of the grievances are likely to have passed by the time he's out of office.
4. In terms of legally legitimate actions, pretty much just a PR campaign against the publication: Call it fake news, attack the credibility of the publication generally, call on his supporters to cancel their subscriptions if they haven't already, encourage other publications to publish attacks on the other journal, etc. In terms of illegitimate or illegal actions, the sky's the limit.

While I can't predict with certainty that Trump won't sue the Times or any other newspaper, I think it's extremely unlikely to happen. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand that some of the Times' claims would be very hard to sue for, even if false. I also accept that politicians are disincentivized from suing even when warranted (although, for the record, in early 2020 the Trump campaign did sue The New York Times, The Washington Post, and CNN for alleged defamation. Still, according to his en-wiki article, these lawsuits lacked merit and were not likely to succeed, and were merely designed to intimidate journalists and the press. So I'm not sure it helps our discussion). Anyway, 3 follow up questions, assuming the Times is complicit of actual malice and can be reasonably be expected to lose a lawsuit:

1. Can someone other than Trump sue? Who? What about after his death (heaven forbid)?
2. What's the statute of limitations for defamation against a politician like Trump?
3. I've looked at cases like New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Westmoreland v. CBS, and Sharon v. Time, but they're quite different from the case we're discussing. Can you recommend other similar precidents?

Thank you, Veritas94 (talk) 19:17, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Cool, I wasn't aware of those cases. I don't know if they've been dismissed. I think the impression that they're more strategic than meritorious is probably correct, though I won't claim the campaign or their lawyers are bringing them without any proper purpose in mind. To respond to your follow-ups:

1. Generally not. If he were to die and the cause of action were not extinguished by his death, his estate could pursue a cause of action on his behalf. But other than that, only he'd have standing to sue.
2. The fact that Trump's a politician is irrelevant. The statute of limitations would depend on the state where he filed suit, which may involve some interesting conflict of laws issues. See Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.
3. I'm not terribly familiar with defamation, it's not my wheelhouse by any means. The Keeton case I mention above is only because I'm something of a procedure wonk. And in that vein, Calder v. Jones stands out in my head as another defamation case. But neither Calder nor Keeton touch the merits of defamation. Part of the issue is that I think you're looking for SCOTUS or federal caselaw when there is no federal defamation law. It's all a state law matter, and when defamation cases are brought in federal court it's under diversity jurisdiction, where the plaintiff wants to sue the defendant under state law in a federal forum. And in case you're going to ask, in what state Trump could or would sue, and which state's law would govern, I have no idea. It doesn't have to be where either the publisher or he is based. See Keeton.

If you're curious about American defamation law in general, I'd honestly just advise reading a legal encyclopedia like American Jurisprudence or Corpus Juris Secundum, which should give you the general elements and an idea of what the majority rules are. And if you're very curious, I'd suggest looking for the Restatement of Torts, Second. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 00:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of any possible legal liability, if the publications turn out to be based on falsified documents, this will be a major blow to the credibility of the NYT. I should think they are well aware of the Killian documents controversy. When these documents proved to be forgeries (or at least could not be authenticated), it was a catastrophe for CBS that ended the career of Dan Rather, their top news anchor.

Herbert Macaulay - moved from Science Desk

I have moved the following thread from the Science Desk, as it seems more of a Humanities question. DuncanHill (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Who was Sir Herbert Macauly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.112.43.130 (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Presumably Herbert Macaulay but I don't know if he was ever knighted — the article certainly doesn't mention it if he was. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This WP:RS [12] suggests he was indeed knighted, so the article needs improving: I have made that comment on its talk page. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 11:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure how reliable that is. I can't find anything else saying he was knighted, and while I only have snippet view of the Dictionary of African Historical Biography referred to in that article, what I can see does not call him Sir. DuncanHill (talk) 14:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Life History of Herbert Macaulay, C. E. by Isaac B Thomas seems to call him Mr. It's possible a Harvard Divine has mistaken the meaning of the postnominals. DuncanHill (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Or that it was an honorary knighthood without entitlement to the "Sir" prefix? Bazza (talk) 14:25, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

He was a British subject, so it wouldn't have been honorary. He still doesn't have the postnominals of an honorary knight. DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

He was debarred from elected office because of a fraud conviction and was regularly in conflict with the colonial authorities (not necessarily a bad thing in retrospect); he doesn't really seem to have been knighthood material. Alansplodge (talk) 07:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

OK. I've now done a text search for Macauly at the London Gazette "here".. Fortunately, the surname is uncommon and what hits there are confirm Herbert Macauly was never knighted, nor given any other of the awards for which the Gazette is the master record. That doesn't fully explain what the other sources said but that's another question. I'll copy this to the Talk Page. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Human error. There are 12,900 ghits for "Sir Benjamin Britten". Trouble is, he was never knighted. He was made a life peer as Baron Britten of Aldeburgh, but was never Sir Benjamin Britten. See, Google finds things that are true and also things that are not true. Your job is to know, or discover, which are which. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Why health related taxes aren't 0% if people need to be alive to pay taxes?

The idea of taxation is because if you are going to have an state instead of anarchist land, this state need money to exist and you get them with taxes.

My question is, assuming the exact reason of taxes existing is the fact a state need money to run (and taxes are how you get that money), why the health related taxes aren't EXACT 0%?

To someone pay taxes, this person need to be alive, and making health tax not be 0% makes health related stuff more expensive because of it and makes harder to this people continue to be alive.

Of course you can get some part of someone money when they die, or some part of someone money when they try to get money from a family member that died, but that will only happen once per person, while a person that is alive will pay taxes over and over and over.2804:7F2:594:E83B:8004:CD1B:1D25:19D0 (talk) 23:01, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

If you (somewhat cynically) only look at the bottom line, the state will collect more money from the exacted taxes than they miss out from people dying earlier because they could not afford paying for health care. Since these people were apparently poor, the state could not have collected much taxes from them anyway. For the rest it's a bit like a "your money or your life" situation. Your argument (which I think is flawed) could be extended to all taxes, since their imposition can mean people have no money left to take care of themselves. But in general, in parasitic relationships, the parasite imposes a burden that is not so heavy that its victim succumbs.

I think, however, that there is another, worse flaw, which is in the premise that health related taxes make access to health care more difficult. In reality, they are used to subsidize health care for people who could not otherwise afford it.  --Lambiam 23:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Living in Ontario, Canada, I pay a certain dollar amount each year (the amount depends on my income and could be zero if I was poor enogh) to OHIP for health care. There is no option to refuse paying and stay out of the system: it's just part of the income tax system. But (with certain exceptions that OHIP does not cover), I pay nothing to actually use the health services. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 06:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean by "health related taxes"? Iapetus (talk) 08:31, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

• First... you DON’T actually have to be alive to pay taxes. Any tax you owe when you die is still owed, it simply has to be paid by your estate. Blueboar (talk) 12:14, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
• The purpose of those taxes is to ensure everyone gets health services. Suppose some people need a $10,000 lifesaving operation. One person could have $50,000, pay up and be left with $40,000. Another might have a million, pay for the operation and be almost not worse off with $990,000. A third person might never be able to scrounge up $10,000 and would die. The purpose of health taxes is to tax person 1 & 2 to pay for the treatment of person 3. More money is spent solely because more lives are saved. You could claim that the system doesn't work, that people fall thru cracks, or that someone might not be able to afford food after paying a health tax, but the reality is that those things happen rarely enough that on average it makes it a lot "easier" for people to continue to be alive, even in a garbage health system as exists in my country. 93.136.178.2 (talk) 22:51, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

The bottom line is that a healthy society is a national security necessity, and an unhealthy society is a national security threat. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

October 7

How often are US states on political world maps and globes in the Old World?

I imagine they're ignored more often than here, being so small compared to the Earth. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

As long as the scale is large enough, one would expect to see individual states named on all maps and globes. Sometimes it is necessary to abbreviate the state names to fit them all in.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Philip's (publisher) is the main producer of school maps and atlases in the UK. I couldn't find a really good image but this one appears to show state boundaries if you zoom in a bit. Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I sometimes see Australian states which are very logical to show as they're big, I rarely if ever see Argentinian or Russian states even if some are big, they could at least make an attempt to show as many practical but they don't so I wondered if the size of some US states often discourage faraway places from showing any at all too. Apparently not. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Such maps have to show Alaska and Hawaii. In Soviet days, Western maps often showed the Soviet Republics, but Kazakhstan and the RSFSR were much bigger than any U.S. state while Belorussia and the Ukraine (as they were called in those days) had separate memberships in the United Nations... AnonMoos (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course they have to show Alaska, my childhood globe had almost every state border, they tried to draw as many states as they could even if some shapes were deformed by closeness to the resolution. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

I have a 30 cm diameter globe made in Europe, no US state borders. Alaska is the same color as mainland USA and has "Alaska (USA)" written on it (and a number of cities, rivers and islands named). 93.136.178.2 (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Snipe hunting

Why would anyone go on a literal snipe hunt? (Not a practical joke, but intending to go out and shoot live birds.) They look so small that you wouldn't get much meat, and they look so delicate that they wouldn't make good sport-hunting trophies. 64.203.186.85 (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

That's presumably why its "funny" -- like hummingbird tongues and eye of newt as delicacies. 2606:A000:1126:28D:D8A9:F996:2EAF:160B (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

People really do go out and hunt snipe. See snipe#hunting and sniper#etymology. I just don't understand why. 64.203.186.85 (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of good recipes for snipe online. Allow at least two per person. I don't understand why anyone should think it a joke, or funny. DuncanHill (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Explained in our article snipe hunt. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Ah, an American joke. DuncanHill (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As well as the already linked Snipe and Sniper articles: the real snipe is incredibly difficult to hit, and so being able to shoot one (without completely obliterating it with shot) means that one is an exceptional marksman. That said, one would probably be out hunting other game, see a snipe, and then shoot it just to prove a point to one's friends as setting out specifically to hunt snipe would be a fool's errand by any standard. People in the past knew that stupidly pointless tasks that were likely to fail were a waste of time (even if we and they might disagree over what qualifies). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe for the same reason that some (in my own experience, most) people go hunting; to hang out with friends and drink large quantities of beer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Why not? Some bored rural Americans shoot squirrels. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

They (snipe that is, not squirrels), are good sport (that is, require skill to shoot), and delicious. This article may help. DuncanHill (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You actually can eat squirrels (if you have enough of them) and hunting them is sometimes a form of pest control. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

You can eat snipe too - BBC Food - Snipe recipes. Alansplodge (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding skill -- that's the origin of the term "sniper". 2606:A000:1126:28D:D8A9:F996:2EAF:160B (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Is there any evidence indicating that the Saudi government and/or royal family has supported and funded Islamist terrorism especially 9/11?

Some people believe the notion that the Saudi royals has actively supported and funded Islamist terrorism worldwide and as a result, they view the allies and arms sellers of Saudi Arabia most notably the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Spain as having reaped what they have sown in all the religiously-motivated terrorist attacks and incidents that happened on their respective soils such as the November 2015 Paris attacks, 2017 London Bridge attack, and 2017 Barcelona attacks. Is there any evidence to support such a notion? Are the national governments of the West to blame for all the terrorist attacks against themselves rather than the attackers? StellarHalo (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Those who commit a crime against humanity are responsible for that crime. Those who seek to blame the innocent people murdered by such a crime are little better than apologists for mass murderers. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

No national governments have been killed (let alone murdered) by terrorists. --Tamfang (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories are based not on evidence but on paranoia and projection. See for example 9/11 conspiracy theories.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

My theory is that it was not a coincidence that several planes were hijacked on that same fateful day, but that this was the result of a conspiracy. I also support the theory that the FBI conspired (unlawfully) to infiltrate the Black Panthers in order to sow discord. I may be paranoid, but that doesn't mean they aren't out to get us. If we discard all conspiracy theories out of hand, it gives the powers that be a free hand to conspire to their hearts' content.  --Lambiam 21:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Terrorist attacks do not attack governments but random individuals, including people who may have actively opposed the policies and actions of their government. Anybody can blame anybody else for any reason or no reason whatsoever, but to pass judgement on whether someone or some entity is to blame requires some criterion that I am sure cannot garner consensus. Consider the kerfuffle after the Reverend Jeremiah Wright said, in a sermon, "America's chickens are coming home to roost". A reasonable case can be made that the US made a grave mistake by first supplying the "student" insurgents un Afghanistan (i.e., the Taliban) with weapons when it was politically expedient to thwart the Sowiet Union, but then dropping all support to Afghanistan like a brick after the pro-Moscow government was toppled by the insurgents. That created conditions allowing anti-US sentiment to grow. The support of governments that trample on human rights and promote fundamentalism does not help either. So these may not be the best foreign policies if you want to counter festering anti-US sentiment that offers a fertile recruiting environment for aspiring terrorists. But observing that is not the same as assigning blame.  --Lambiam 21:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Minor nitpick, but the US supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, not the Taliban. Some Mujahideen, such as Mullah Omar, later ended up in the Taliban but some other Mujahideen, such as Ahmad Shah Massoud, later ended up leading anti-Taliban resistance, in Massoud's case the Northern Alliance. Futurist110 (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Lambiam -- The sleazy extremist whom the United States supported in 1980s Afghanistan was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (remember him?), and not either the Taliban (who didn't yet exist) or Osama bin Laden (who helped run an obscure support organization funded by wealthy Arabs). The U.S. gave Gulbuddin money mainly because Pakistan made it a condition of the U.S. using Pakistan as a hub for anti-Soviet activities.

StellarHalo -- I'm not sure that there's ever been a smoking gun for official Saudi support for al-Qaeda, but for a while the Saudi authorities seemed to have an informal understanding that al-Qaeda would not conduct operations in Saudi Arabia, and in turn, the Saudis would not crack down on donations made to al-Qaeda by private Saudi individuals... AnonMoos (talk) 07:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

October 8

What was Mussolini’s relationship with animals?

How did Benito Mussolini treat other animals? Did he have anything to say about them? Did he ever own any pets? —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 03:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The first result when Googling Mussolini and animals immediately tells me that he enjoyed horse riding and had a pet lion cub....--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Mussolini loved to appear at parades and rallies on horseback for heroic effect. After the Axis capture of Tobruk in 1942, he ordered a white stallion to be found for his triumphal entry into Alexandria; the First Battle of El Alamein put paid to that. Perhaps petting lions fall into the same category. Alansplodge (talk) 08:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

This newsreel] shows Mussolini playing with his lion. Whether he genuinely liked animals or just used them to enhance his own virile image, I can't tell. His famous quote, “It's better to live one day as a lion than a thousand years as a sheep”, was recently Tweeted by Mr Trump. [13] Alansplodge (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, it was "his" quote in the sense that at some point he quoted it, and a lot of people remembered him saying it. But it was not original with him.

Exactly who said it for the first time I have not been able to find out for certain. Secolo d'Italia attributes it to Ignazio Pisciotta, a WWI officer who I gather was just a captain during the war, because they made him a major when they retired him, but somehow retired as a general after being called up again to work in a museum. Il Giornale on the other hand calls it a "more or less anonymous" saying from the Great War.

It was also used in a fantastic song called Je so' pazzo by Pino Daniele, put anachronistically into the mouth of Masaniello.

In any case, whoever said it, I think you have to admit it has a nice ring to it. --Trovatore (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if Trump knows that Mussolini ended up more like a side of beef. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

"Those who do not know history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them". Alansplodge (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Keep that in mind if you ever consider invading Poland. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Any way to find older British laws online?

And not even that old. I'm trying to find an original text or reference to the "Malta (Constitution) Order in Council 1961"; I know it's SI 1961, vol. III, 4581. And I can find many sources online referring to it. But I have yet, despite browsing multiple gazettes, to find the actual text. It seems crazy that the Brits don't have something from as recent as 1961 online; am I missing something obvious, or am I really out of luck unless I find a hard copy of the 1961 statutory instruments? --Golbez (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

I've tried www.legislation.gov.uk but sorry, no hits - you might try with some keywords? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

The National Archives would normally be able to give you a quotation for a copy, but I understand this service has been suspended for the time being. See here for the catalogue description. As the Order is presumably spent and no longer in effect in the UK there would be no great need to prioritise putting it online. DuncanHill (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

And its not actually a statute, it's an Order in Council which is made using powers already granted under existing legislation. Alansplodge (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Both those excellent points would explain why it's not online. Per [14], they have only digitized Orders in Council back to 2000, alas. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone know why? Why does the US have every law, including Confederate, passed since the 1700s, but the UK can't even manage that since the 1970s? --04:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Why should we? If a law is no longer in force, what's the point? As pointed out, in the absence of a global pandemic a copy is available. The converse question is why does the USA make "laws" made by traitors available? DuncanHill (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article, Orders in Council are analogous to US executive orders, which are only available online from 1994, so you're not doing a whole lot better than us on this particular issue. Alansplodge (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

October 9

Books and other publications about the post-World War I peace settlement that were published during World War I?

Which books were published during World War I that speculate about the shape of the post-World War I peace settlement? I could think of Arnold J. Toynbee's 1915 book Nationality & the War and another 1915 book by a different author titled The Great Settlement:

https://archive.org/details/greatsettlement00faylgoog

While not a book, there is, of course, also the report about its recommendations for post-World War I Europe and the Middle East (including its recommendations for the new national borders) that The Inquiry published, likely during World War I.

Anyway, though, which additional books or at least published materials that were made during World War I and that speculate about the post-World War I peace settlement are there? Any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I found The study of the Great War: a topical outline with copious quotations and reading references (1918) p. 38: "Proposals for Peace; Will this be the last war?", which was written in January 1918. Alansplodge (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll go and check it out! Anything else? Futurist110 (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

President Wilson's Fourteen Points were also issued in January 1918. Xuxl (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I'm already well-aware of them. The reason that I did not specifically mention them here is because they were not a part of a book and/or some other publication. That said, though, if you have any other examples similar to the Fourteen Points, I am nevertheless very willing and very eager to hear them! Futurist110 (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Only a month after the War started, Romain Rolland published "Au-dessus de la mêlée" (Above the Fray), which argued the war was a colossally stupid mistake and invited both sides to stand down before it turned into wholescale carnage. No one listened, of course. There's an article on the French Wikipedia, "Tentatives de paix pendant la Première Guerre mondiale" which has some details about additional proposals, none of which amounted to much. Of course, most proponents did not take the time to write a whole book about their proposals, but simply made the main ideas public, as Wilson did with his Fourteen Points. Others tried to advance them through behind-the-scenes diplomacy. Xuxl (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

A number of articles about British War Aims were published during the war, including some speeches by David Lloyd George - see for example his The Great Crusade. I would not take any of them too seriously as models for the post-war settlement, as, in common with "war aims" published by any and all of the other belligerents, they were primarily intended as negotiating points and encouragement for the Home Front. As for "why don't we all stop fighting and be nice to each other" works by the like of Rolland, they can be discounted as wishful thinking by people who had no comprehension of how the world works. One might say the same of Wilson's contributions. DuncanHill (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez question

If Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would have been born exactly one or two months later than she was born in real life, would she still be able to run for the US Presidency and US Vice Presidency in 2024? I'm assuming Yes because she would still turn 35 by January 20, 2025, correct? Futurist110 (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The age requirement in Clause 5 of Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution, which lays down the required qualifications for electibility, is generally interpreted as referring to the time of taking office, that is, January 20 of the year 2025, assuming elections will be held in 2024. I think this has not been litigated and tested in court, but since the date of the actual election (by the Electoral College? or else the House/Senate?) is not definitely and definitively fixed in advance, it is hard to see which other interpretation could have binding legal significance.  --Lambiam 10:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. So, it looks like my analysis here is correct. Futurist110 (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a curious opening in Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment: "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify [at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President], then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified". This suggests that the US electorate could decide collectively to vote for Kelly Rohrbach to become their President in 2025; her pick for VP, say the actor Chris Warren, would have to serve as acting prez for one day.  --Lambiam 20:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

What about if their Vice President is also below the age of 35, though? Futurist110 (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

In that case it is up to Congress to make a law declaring who shall then act as President until either the President or Vice President elect shall have qualified.  --Lambiam 15:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It's to be hoped the Electoral College would not let it come to this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Let it come to what? Electing the Rohrbach–Warren 2024 ticket? Should they be unfaithful to the voting results of the individual States?  --Lambiam 15:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

Heym & Sauerwald Elektro-technische Fabrik

Does anyone know what was the business of Heym & Sauerwald Elektro-technische Fabrik? It was active around 1890s and it's address was Wilhelmstrasse 119/120. Owner were W. Heym and R. Sauerwald. Does anyone know who was R. Sauerwald? Was he same as Eduard Rudolph Alexander Sauerwald (1848 Berlin -1907 London)?Horus1927 05:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horus1927 (talk • contribs)

Not an answer at all, but assuming the address is a Berlin address, apparently the address housed at the same time the publishing company J. Guttentag.^[15] The lack of search results for "Heym & Sauerwald" suggests it was a rather small factory, probably dealing only with low-voltage installations and not heavy-duty electrical machinery.  --Lambiam 11:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

If we are looking for the Berlin craftsman from the earlier question, who made instruments for Heinrich Gustav Magnus, Emil du Bois-Reymond and Hermann von Helmholtz, most often "F. Sauerwald" (wonder if this is confusion with de:Franz Sauerwald), the most detailed source found does refer to him as "E. Sauerwald". Brenni is Brenni, Paulo (January 1, 2004). "Mystery object answered: the Helmholtz myograph". Scientific Instrument Society Bulletin, No. 82: 34–36. (can only find up to #80 online). Ivan Sechenov supposedly noted his Berlin address here but i am having no luck searching in cryllic. fiveby(zero) 16:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

On p. 109 of the book there is a reference to a "mechanic Sauerwald" (in the dative: механику Зауәрвальду) in Berlin (Kanonierstrasse, 43).  --Lambiam 19:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, an Otto Plath succeeded in our Sauerwald's work at the same address ~1880, annoying there is not enough for an article. fiveby(zero) 14:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Greeting with a hand grip

What is the word for this gesture? --95.115.28.241 (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It started as a black thing, and is apparently called Giving dap. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have Times (UK) access?

Would someone with Times access mind looking at this article to see if it mentions Antonia Gransden's maiden name? I have found two sources that have it as Harrison and one that has it as Morland, and it would be awfully nice to get it straight. Or any thoughts about other places to look? This obit is good for her scholarship but doesn't mention her birth name. Thanks! blameless 21:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Blameless: Best place for a request like this is at WP:RX. RudolfRed (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I've moved it there. blameless 22:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Both The Times and The Grauniad write that she was born to Stephen Morland and Hilda (née Street).^[16] Only snippet view, but this GBS result suggests that at one time she went by the name Antonia Harrison. An earlier marriage?  --Lambiam 14:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, seems likely to be either that or a stepfather, but I'm uncomfortable adding it without confirmation. For now I've used just her first name in her husband's article (there's another mystery about whether or when they legally divorced, but since neither remarried I am not sure it matters for our purposes). blameless 18:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Asquith or Askwith?

At what point, and for what reasons, did the spellings of Askwith and Asquith diverge? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Per the Oxford Dictionary of Place Names, the village was Ascvid in the Domesday Book (from Old Scandinavian askr + vithr meaning "ash wood"). As the village's article mentions, in the 19th century it was being variously recorded either as "Askwith", or as "Asquith" from which the surname derives. I suspect the latter was a supposedly learnéd rendition based on false etymology, but have no evidence. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.162.83 (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Several English words starting with 'qu' are inherited via Middle English from Anglo-Norman or have Germanic roots (e.g. queen, quench, quick, quiver), so a 'qu' spelling is not specifically a learned one. Apparently there is a record of one Joseph Asquith who flourished in 1664 (but not much longer).^[17] English orthography was still kind of a free-for-all in the 17th century; Johnson's Dictionary was only published in 1755. This was even more true for proper nouns. One spelling may have become ensconced within the Asquith family, while another may have independently become the preferred one for the registrars of the village. The 19th-century occurrences of the spelling Asquith for the village may have been influenced by the already established spelling of the notable family.  --Lambiam 14:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

October 10

Settler colonialism that was done with the consent of the existing population of a particular territory?

Which cases of settler colonialism have there been that were done with the consent of the existing population of a particular territory? Futurist110 (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

According to the legends of the founding of Carthage, the natives of the area gave permission. In the pre-Roman Mediterranean, many colonies were coastal trading outposts without much possibility to expand beyond their coastal enclaves. If the native inhabitants of such areas welcomed trade goods, but had no ability to conduct long-distance maritime trade themselves, then they often welcomed the colonies... AnonMoos (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

See also the legend of Hengist and Horsa. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. What about in more modern times? Futurist110 (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

In the book Humans, Tom Phillips writes that in the first half of the 19th century, when Mexico was newly independent from Spain, they "decided to put the underdeveloped land in their northern province of Texas to good use. Wanting a buffer zone that would protect Mexico from both raids by the Comanche people and the westward growth of the United States, the Mexicans started encouraging American ranchers and farmers to come and settle in the area". But the American community wanted political power, with the result that "in 1830 the Mexicans abruptly tried to ban any further American immigration, but found themselves powerless to stop the influx of American immigrants". When the authoritarian Santa Anna took power in Mexico, Texas revolted, and of course later joined the US. Phillips concludes: "There are a couple of divergent lessons we can draw from this. On the one hand, there's 'don't encourage immigration only to later turn against those same immigrant communities'. On the other, there's also 'don't assume that you'll always be a democracy, because THAT'S EXACTLY WHEN THINGS GO WRONG'."

I don't know how accurate this is; I have not looked for other descriptions of these events.--174.89.48.182 (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Did Mexico also invite US settlers into California? Or did the US settlers who came to California do so without the Mexican government's permission and consent? Futurist110 (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

This depends on who's telling the story. For example, for my city in Australia, Melbourne#Early history and foundation tells us "...John Batman, a leading member of the Port Phillip Association in Van Diemen's Land, explored the Melbourne area, and later claimed to have negotiated a purchase of 600,000 acres (2,400 km2) with eight Wurundjeri elders." It has been argued since that language and cultural barriers made it impossible for there to have been any real understanding on the part of the Aboriginal people as to what they allegedly agreed to. I'm sure this story has been repeated dozens of times all over the world. HiLo48 (talk)

Even if these elders understood the deal fully well, one wonders if they were authorized to seal it. I think I can find some New York elders with whom I can negotiate the purchase of the Brooklyn Bridge for a case of wine.  --Lambiam 14:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The change in Iraq's religious demographics over time?

Does anyone here know how Iraq's religious demographics have changed over time? Futurist110 (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Demographics of Iraq#Religions 2 has some unreferenced guestimates. Alansplodge (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

UK Government stats are on page 11 of this report. Alansplodge (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The CIA Factbook from various years may show you the differences over time. RudolfRed (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Futurist110 (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

2nd Amendment interpretation

My argument on 2nd amendment is that regarding semi auto/auto/bolt action/lever action weapons, the Founders could not have conceived of such weaponry and they should be more regulated beyond strict interpretation. Strict interpretation leaves these weapons as an outlier. My question is.. Has there ever been an argument in the myriad court cases to this effect? -- 108.222.210.123 (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't know about that, but there have been arguments about whether a strict Originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution would allow an air force to exist (see [18] etc) -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The consensus among legal scholars appears to be that the Second Amendment does not imply "the right to bear bazookas", although at least one court has issued an originalist ruling that seems to imply this right.^[19] I wonder if this court would also uphold the right to keep and bear Davy Crocketts (with warheads).  --Lambiam 14:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

District of Columbia v. Heller addressed this:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
— Justice Scalia, Opinion of the Court[20]

fiveby(zero) 14:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Except that it doesn't; a person can certainly "bear" a Stinger surface-to-air missile, but to do so is a federal felony punishable by life imprisonment. The idea that there is a simple, neat, clean definition of "bearable arms" which are all legal, is simply another fallacy of Scalia's nonsense originalism. The Second Amendment cannot be read literally, and not even originalists are willing to try. They just want to pretend it can to defend outcomes they want. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's what it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

The OP is asking for an argument in the myriad court cases. Your own opinion is of no value here. fiveby(zero) 15:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

There are a slew amicus briefs for Heller and having trouble finding which makes the argument you are looking for. May be something in the briefs for Caetano v. Massachusetts. fiveby(zero) 15:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Ardent defenders of the 2nd Amendment say that its purpose is "to defend against a tyrannical government." Presumably that's what the alleged kidnapping plotters in Michigan were using to justify their plans. However, without military-grade weapons being available to the general public, that "defense" argument has very little practical value. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Which is why some think the AKs and M4s of today's average infantrymen should be as easy to get as mundane civilian guns. Would that work? I dunno. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

There is a difference between "dangerous and unusual" see Kolbe v. Hogan and "arms in existence in the 18th century". fiveby(zero) 16:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

In the United States, private ownership or sale/transfer of machine guns requires the approval of the Attorney General if the weapon was manufactured after 1986. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

One of my favorite responses to this exceptionally common "the founders never could have conceived" argument (thoroughly put to bed in Heller as noted above) is to note that the founders never could have conceived of a home printer that could turn out dozens of pages per minute of the vilest libel, sedition, and obscenity that virtually any person could operate. Yet the First Amendment still protects ownership of those devices. 199.66.69.32 (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Libel is not protected speech or print. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Libel is not protected speech, and murder is not a protected use of a firearm. But 199's assertion is that suppression of printing devices (not their uses) would run afoul of the First Amendment. I'm not sure whether that's actually true; I'm not aware of any serious proposal to ban printers, so it has never really come up. But I could see the argument being made. --Trovatore (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

While we are getting off-topic, I might add that some on this side of the world wonder about the "well trained militia". Doug butler (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Grammatically, that clause is called an absolute, and these are quite rare in law so it's problematic figuring out what to do with it. Generally, in English, absolutes have the force of a subordinate clause, providing context for the main part of the sentence but usually not altering its meaning.

That would make it a surplusage. There's a principle of statutory interpretation called the "rule against surplusages", which suggests that interpretations should try to "give effect" to all parts of legal text. But the originalist argument is that there is no way consonant with ordinary English semantics to read this clause as limiting the right to its exercise in a militia. --Trovatore (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Actually it says "well regulated". Legalistically, the National Guard is considered to fit that definition. These characters calling themselves "militia" are sometimes just domestic terrorists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Source needed for Beethoven Statue by János Horvay

Hi, I'm working on List of monuments to Ludwig van Beethoven and I'm unable to find a reliable source for a statue of Beethoven in Budapest, Hungary. The Commons file says that it is by János Horvay and was installed in 1932 but I can't find any source to support this. Any help would be appreciated. Aza24 (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

A google search for the four keywords beethoven statue budapest horvay found multiple references. The caption to File:János Horvay - Beethoven - 1932 (1).jpg gives the location in Budapest as the hu:Városmajor. Checking Google Maps shows that the statue is indeed there, labeled as the "Beethoven szobor" and visible in Street View imagery. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

October 11

Were Ba'athist parties generally led by minorities?

I found it interesting that the Iraqi Ba'ath Party was led by the Sunni Arab Saddam Hussein and that the Syrian Ba'ath Party was led by the Alawite Assad family, with both Saddam Hussein and the Assad family belonging to minority groups in Iraq and Syria, respectively. This made me wonder--were Ba'athist parties in other countries also led by members of minority groups? Or was this something that was unique to the Ba'ath Party in Iraq and Syria--and, if so, why exactly? Futurist110 (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

This might have something to do with a frequent colonialist tactic of placing local administrative power (under the overall control of the colonisers) in the hands of a minority ethnicity within the territory concerned, so that they would enforce the colonisers' laws in order to protect their own position (and lives). I'm sure there is a term for this, but I don't know what it is. Both Syria and Iraq in their modern forms were of course created, somewhat artificially, by European powers in the earlier half of the 20th century following the enforced breakup of the Ottoman Empire. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.162.83 (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)