User talk:Futurist110

Here (just click here) is my entire user talk for the years 2012 to 2020.

Talk page archiving

Hello, it seems like you incorrectly archived your talk page. You created Editing User talk:Futurist110: 2012-2020, I moved that page to User talk:Futurist110/2012-2020. You can read more on how to archive your talk page at Help:Archiving a talk page. Thank you. -- LuK3 (Talk) 23:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Your refdesk questions

Futurist110, you've misused the refdesks for your "child support" and "sterilization"-related questions for years, and you have repeatedly been told you need to knock it off. You really need to keep your personal obsessions out of that space. If I see another question about those topics from you there, I will selectively block you from the refdesks for a lengthy time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Fine. I'll stop. Though for what it's worth, my latest question was only peripherally related to child support. Still, I'll stop. Futurist110 (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

French Indochina

I doubt that France's quick defeat in World War II changed much regarding Indochina. The independence movement was already starting by then, and it was the same all over the world (India, Indonesia, Africa in short order). France would probably still have tried to hold on to some of its colonies by force - including Indochina, which was considered a jewel -, but the movement was unstoppable and would have led to independence in any case. Xuxl (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think Ho Chi Minh would have simply disappeared under your scenario, but a more managed transition would likely have prevented him from incarnating the entire nationalist movement by himself. So, it's definitely less likely that communism would have prevailed. Xuxl (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

No, US military involvement would have been extremely unlikely under such a scenario. It was all premised on the domino theory. Xuxl (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

On the Hungary question, I have no idea. There were a lot of factors at play in how the borders in central Europe were re-drawn after World War II, so I'm not sure how much influence one small thing wielded. Xuxl (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Charles IV d'Alençon

Infertility is a relatively common problem and is not genetic (there's an old joke that goes, if your parents were infertile, there's good chance you are too). I couldn't find anything specific about Charles IV, except that he did not have any children. Medical science was still primitive at the time, so I doubt you'll find anything more profound than this. Xuxl (talk) 13:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Gerda! Futurist110 (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Kaouther Adimi

A lot of persons from the Maghreb, particularly those with Berber ancestry, are almost indistinguishable from Europeans. There is no need for direct french ancestry. Xuxl (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Charles III de Bourbon

He doesn't seem to have had a particularly different personality from the other leading noblemen of the era, so I don't see him taking France in unexpected directions. The French article notes that he was a spendthrift, so that could have been problematic, and he did not have François Ier's charismatic personality, but apart from that it's hard to speculate on how he would have shaped France's destinies. Possibly kept the governing system less centralized, given he came from one of the feudal states making up France, and not from the central authority, but that's mere speculation. It was the wars of religion that really shuffled things (and the fact that the kings of the era were weak, after Henry II's premature death), but that came a couple of decades after Charles III's death. In fact, had he been king then it would have created succession problems in its own right, as he died childless. Xuxl (talk) 14:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

EU

Right now, the EU is contracting, not expanding, following Brexit. It has some soul searching to do, and a number of challenges, including anti-democratic drift in a number of members that were accepted in recent years. So the time is not particularly ripe to admit a problematic new member like Ukraine, whose governance issues are well known. However, the organization's stated aim is to eventually include all the countries of Europe, and Ukraine is undoubtedly a European country, so - if the EU survives and expands again - Ukraine is likely to be on the list of potential new members. The question is when, but things are so uncertain at this point, both with regard to the EU's internal workings and to the attitude of Russia, that I wouldn't speculate. Xuxl (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Could Russia join? In theory, yes. In reality, no, as it sees itself as a superpower and thus would never agree to delegating some of its state powers to a supranational entity. (And I have no idea about your Philippines question). Xuxl (talk) 20:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Korea and Vietnam divided without communism? Definitely not, there is no other reason for the partition they had to endure (and still do in Korea's case). Same for Germany and Yemen, too. Xuxl (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan is also undoubtedly a result of communism. There would have been no reason for the U.S. to prop up the Chinese government-in-exile absent this, and here we still are 70 years later. Xuxl (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the war would have ended in a draw. It would simply have become the 120 or 150 years war or however long it would have taken to "bouter les Anglais hors de France". Xuxl (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

My sense is that there was no long-term "winning" the war. They were not going to hold onto French territory permanently, so they could only have extended the conflict by a few more decades. Winning would have meant taking over the French throne and having that accepted by the local population, but I don't see this as a realistic outcome. Xuxl (talk) 01:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

It didn't matter much whether the population loved the particular dynasty - they were kings by divine right and not through popular backing (that would only come with Louis-Philippe I in 1830). The issue is whether the king was considered French and the legitimate successor of Clovis. The English pretenders, in spite of some genealogically-based claims to the throne, never could get past that hurdle, hence Joan of Arc's famous motto which I quoted above. Xuxl (talk) 13:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

If South Vietnam had fallen in the mid '60s, the U.S. would hardly have had time to be involved in the war, so it's not likely that they would have felt the need to take in so many refugees. That said, some countries that were not involved in the Vietnam war also took in large numbers of refugees (i.e. Canada). When there's a major refugee resettlement crisis, there are only a small number of countries open to accepting refugees, and the U.S. is one of them. Xuxl (talk) 01:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

You're reading too much into my response about Reagan's assassination attempt. What I menant is that the heart, liver, or such was not hit, in which case there would have been no way to save the President. My point was not that the injuries he suffered were minor (it was quite the opposite, actually) but that for a tiny change in bullet trajectory, he would have had no chance of survival. I didn't remember what the exact nature of Reagan's injuries were, just that he had barely escaped them being fatal (as it seems one can survive a bullet through a lung a lot more than one through some other organs). Xuxl (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Unconstitutional constitutional amendment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nationality, religion, and language data for the provinces of Thailand, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malays.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Thailand and Vietnam

Interesting question. I agree with you that the premise is a feasible one, and that Vietnam clearly had military superiority at that point. However, I don't think they had much desire to "punish" their neighbor. Their invasion of Cambodia was to rid the world of one of the worst regimes in recent history, and was in fact regarded as an act of public good by everyone; they did install a puppet government in Cambodia, but did not try to annex any territory, so no one really gave them too much of a hard time for their intervention. Attacking Thailand would have been a different matter; I expect they would have faced significant international sanctions, but I don't see the U.S. intervening (they had just got out of their Indochinese swamp), and not the USSR either. China is a possibility, but they were still not back to big power status at the time, and had no particular affection for Thailand. So I'm not sure who could really have prevented an invasion. What did in fact restrain Vietnam is that there was nothing obvious to be gained, and they would likely have been bogged down for a long time after a quick initial military victory (think of the two Gulf Wars: in the first one in 1991, a quick "hit-and-run" victory did not accomplish much beyond getting Iraq out of Kuwait; and in the second, in 2003, the quick victory turned into a long-term quagmire). Just a few thoughts. Xuxl (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely a possibility that China would have intervened in the scenario you depict. Xuxl (talk) 21:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd say the odds would depend on the nature of the U.S. intervention: is it just a small raid or punishment operation, or a major offensive that seeks to topple the North Vietnamese government? The more you move towards the latter, the higher the odds of China intervening. Xuxl (talk) 21:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Bourbon-Vendôme

You're absolutely right. It took a very unusual set of circumstances for Henri IV to make it to the French throne, that no one could have anticipated a hundred years earlier, hell even when he was born. History is not always predictable. Xuxl (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea who would have the better claim to succession under your scenario, but by that point, the heirs are so far removed from the direct line that it could have opened the door for some other member of the aristocracy to take over the throne by force. It took a lot of work for Henri IV to gain recognition, and it's not certain that someone else would have done so successfully, which leaves the door open to all sorts of scenarios. Xuxl (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I've seen the discussion. By the way, I'm not French, just a native French speaker. Xuxl (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

You're correct about my origins, but I'd rather not discuss personal details on a public forum. Xuxl (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I studied history in college, and kept reading about it in subsequent years. Xuxl (talk) 21:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

The Count of Chambord was a notorious reactionary and basically worked his way out of the throne through his stubbornness (I remember we talked about this at one point). It's not clear how the Comte de Paris would have approached the same situation had he been the head of the legitimiste branch in 1870, but he probably would have accepted to compromise a bit more than his father in order to sit on the throne. But even then, the long-term trend was towards a republic, so he would likely have run into trouble with Parliament sooner rather than later if he tried in any way to steer politics, which I don't see how he could have avoided because that's how French kings (and emperors) had behaved for ages. So the question is, how quickly would the next revolution have come? Your guess is as good as mine, but World War I would definitely have been a very stressful time for a weak monarchic regime with a strong base of Republican opposition, and before that there were other episodes of great political tension that could have toppled the régime (the rise of Boulanger, the Dreyfuss Affair, anarchist movements in the early 1900s, colonial clashes, etc.)... Xuxl (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I realized my mistake after posting; I should have said "distant relative", not father. In any case, the main question is how a weak monarchy would have weathered the various storms that raged over the five decades that followed the War of 1870. It would definitely have been stormy times... Xuxl (talk) 13:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

World War II

As you know, the attack on Poland was not Hitler's first strike: he had already remilitarized the Ruhr, annexed part of Czechoslovakia and committed Anschluss with Austria with little adverse reaction. Poland was just the last straw, when France and the UK had no choice but to intervene, as they now realized Hitler would never stop looking for more territory (indeed, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact followed shortly thereafter). I don't see a non-Nazi government in Germany escalating things to such a point that the two countries, who had no wish to get involved in another war, simply have no other choice. It's not that Danzig was particularly strategic to their interests; it was the accumulation of expansionist gestures by Germany that started the war. I don't see that taking place absent Hitler. Xuxl (talk) 22:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

I know more about the Byzantine Empire than the average man on the street, but likely not enough to answer some of your rather pointed questions. Sorry. Xuxl (talk) 14:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

You're out of my depth with these latest questions, but I can recommend reading The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and Baudolino by Umberto Eco. Xuxl (talk) 02:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't have a good handle on Dewey and on how he would have governed had he been elected. He would likely have had to do something about Korea as well, so the outcome might not have been different - except perhaps he would not have stood up to those wishing to use nuclear weapons in that conflict. As for a potential democratic opponent in 1952, I still see Adlai Stevenson as the most likely choice. A Truman defeated in 1948 would likely have consolidated his image as a lightweight hick from Missouri (which how many people considered him when he succeeded FDR), making him an unlikely choice for a major political comeback. Xuxl (talk) 20:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The Khmer Rouge were active long before Nixon, and their ideology was already in place. The question is whether the State was weak enough absent U.S. bombing to be ready to fall. It seems to me there were already major cracks in the foundation, so one cannot exclude that the Khmer Rouge would have taken power even without the U.S.'s unwitting help. But, as in all other alternative history questions, no one knows for sure. Xuxl (talk) 21:07, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The article you linked on the Stalin proposal covers the issue pretty well. I don't have anything to add. Xuxl (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure you have a question on the DMZ hypothesis. Obviously, the U.S. did not follow that track, likely because the backlash from carving territory away from two (formally) non-belligerent countries would not have gone down well internationally. The secret bombing of Cambodia was not a huge success either, and basically cost the U.S. whatever moral high ground they may have once had, both at home and abroad. 22:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC) Xuxl (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Well there were some fundamental flaws about the U.S. strategy in Vietnam. Their approach has been criticized by many observers ("we won all the battles but lost the war", is the famous quote, which indicated that their concept of what they were trying to achieve was all wrong). Anyway, that's just my two cents. On Syria, the Alawites are not Chiites in any significant way - even if they can strike an alliance with Iran for political reasons, so that's a bit of a flaw in the basic logic. In any case, to increase their demographic weight, you would have needed either a major inflow of immigrants from either Lebanon or Iraq, or a major outflow of non-Shia. Or you can gerrymander the country... None of these seem realistic to me. Xuxl (talk) 22:39, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Being an offshoot of Shiaism doesn't mean the Alawites share a world view with the main branch. In particular, they don't recognize the leadership role of the ayatollahs, and have a largely secular outlook on society. The Ismailis are another nominally Shi'ite group who really have little in common with what's going down in Iran, Iraq or Lebanon. So it's a mistake to think you can just lump them together. As for Afghanistan, it depends on a number of unknown factors; but permanent resettlement is not normally the preferred solution, and the Syrian crisis demonstrated that there is very limited appetite for a large refugee intake in Western countries. So, a massive outflow of refugees is likely to end up in neighbouring countries (Pakistan, India, Iran, and central Asia, mainly). Afghans also have the disadvantage of being really far from the west (in contrast, you can literally walk from Syria to western Europe, which many did). Xuxl (talk) 23:16, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Without the Spanish American War, I don't see why Germany would want to annex the Philippines; sure they wanted to build a colonial empire, but I doubt that they were ready to wage war against another European power (for the U.S., annexing the Philippines was an accidental result of a war being waged over issues such as Cuba and Puerto Rico, which were in its own backyard; no such excuse for Germany). However, definitely Japan, as they did in World War II. It probably would have happened earlier, as given Spain's weakness at the time, the prize would have been ripe for the picking. As for an eventual war with Japan absent the Philippines: it is still likely as Japan and the U.S. were the two rising powers in the Pacific at the time, and in fact the major issue was not over the Philippines but over Japanese expansion writ large. I won't say war was inevitable, but Japan had set itself on a collision course with its all-out expansionist policy. Xuxl (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

There's a difference between purchasing a small island here or there and getting a huge, highly populated archipelago like the Philippines... Xuxl (talk) 22:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

False equivalencies: the value of many of these territories was vastly underestimated at the time of purchase (speaking of Louisiana and Alaska), and a sale in the middle of the 18th century (Corsica) is largely irrelevant in this case. The Mexico purchase was forced by a military defeat a couple of years earlier. Maybe there's evidence that Spain would have been willing to sell the Philippines and at a price that would be affordable; I'm just not aware of this. In any case. you often seem to ask questions - both here and on the refdesk - where you've already made up your mind about the answer. This seems to be another case of this. Xuxl (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

The record of military interventions to prevent communism is not so great. In a way, it's a good thing that there weren't more, as the negative consequences of these efforts was significant. One could say the same about some of the more recent forms of intervention against extremism. Xuxl (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

All sorts of countries have been partitioned for all sorts of reason (both France and Italy were for a spell during World War II, for example). It almost always happens when there is a civil war that's a bit protracted. In the 20th century, one of the parties to the conflict usually tries to seek outside support from those willing to do so, and often it was the Communist block, so many of these conflicts then became depicted as "communists versus non communists" when it was not necessarily originally the case. In short, a partition scenario could have occurred just about anywhere; add in a dash of Cold War politics and suddenly it can become a frozen conflict. I'm sure that if the current Somalia/Somaliland partition had occurred three decades earlier, it would have been depicted through the lense of communism, as this was the way such conflicts were always analyzed back then. So your question does not really have an answer; I'm sure you can come up with many more scenarios than the already numerous ones you listed. Xuxl (talk) 13:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

If you want to make the Baltic states Slavic majority, you either have to greatly increase the number of Russians living there (by encouraging immigration, I guess) or reduce the number of natives (by encouraging emigration, since you rule out more drastic solutions). Or you can play with the borders, by incorporating some areas with largely Slavic population. The question is, why would you want to do so ? These are relatively small countries with limited resources, and Russia already has plenty of land. The port of Riga is of interest, and Latvia is where the greatest number of Russians settled, but with Russia gaining control of Königsberg (now Kaliningrad) after World War II, they already had a major port on the Baltic Sea. The population of the Baltic states was never pleased with being swallowed by force into the USSR (or Russia before that), so you're just asking for trouble by forcing Russification or Slavification upon them. Which is what happened in the end; the revolt in the Baltic states was the start of the break-up of the Soviet Union. Xuxl (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Russia did annex the Baltic states, for the reasons you state. They figured that incorporating them by force into the USSR would take care of the issue in perpetuity, without any need to commit the type of cultural genocide you seem to advocate. I'm not very comfortable with your premise that Russia or Russians, for some reason, should conquer or should have conquered all sorts of neighboring territories and gotten rid of the populations that had the gall to have actually lived there for centuries. Away from the ruminations of armchair geopoliticians, these sorts of things usually do not turn out well and cause untold suffering. You may want to read up about contemporary happenings with the Uyghurs or Rohingyas.

Regarding Lenin, there were plenty of revolutionary socialists around at the time; either some other leader would have emerged to lead the Russian faction, or more likely, the Bolshevic Revolution would have been delayed or averted. Which is what happened to the similar movements led by Liebknecht in Germany and Bela Kun in Hungary only a couple of years after the October Revolution. Russia would still have been fertile ground for revolutionary upheaval, however, as its passage into the 20th century had been anything but a smooth one. Xuxl (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

The examples we have of Japanese colonization in the 20th century - mainly Korea and Manchuria - were characterized by brutality and outright exploitation. The Japanese had an arrogant superiority complex at the time when dealing with neighboring Asian countries, and the results wer not pretty. I don't see how it would have been any different in the Philippines. Their behavior in places they occupied during the war was no better, either. Thankfully, this has since changed. Now, regarding Afghanistan, it was such a distant and difficult to access place one hundred years ago, I don't see how it could have made any difference in the greater course of the war. There could have been some colonial skirmished (on the scale of what happened in east Africa), but so what. And there was really no pan-Islamic movement at the time, so it's not useful to look at things through a 21st century lense in terms of what impacts events in Central Asia could have had on the Ottoman Empire and so on. Xuxl (talk) 13:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Think what you want about Kazakhstan; I don't expect you've ever been there. There is no significant Russian separatist movement that needs countering, even if you like to play around with ethnic groups like they were lego blocks. Russians are leaving, and so are some Germans, because there are better opportunities elsewhere and they don't see their future in Kazakhstan. That does not mean they want to create a separate state, or that relocating the capital in the center of the country, in an area where there was little population beforehand, was done to foil Russian separatism. It's part of that old tendency of countries to want to have their capital in the center of the country (I gave a number of other examples, none of which involved cases of separatism). Just because you think up something doesn't mean it's true. Xuxl (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

As I've said above about Afghanistan, one hundred years ago it was an extremely remote and difficult to access place. I doubt anyone would have expended more than token resources in either defending it or trying to conquer it. Xuxl (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Just like I said: "some colonial skirmishes (on the scale of what happened in east Africa)"; yes, it was possible to send some troops, but not worth the effort of staging a large expedition, that would have little or no impact on the more important conflict back in Europe. Which is pretty much what happened. The scale could have been ramped up a bit, but would still not have changed much of anything in the bigger picture. I just can't see a scenario where anything happening in Afghanistan at that time has any impact beyond the immediate neighborhood. Xuxl (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Back to World War I, to answer your question, you have to ask yourself what were Germany's war aims. I'm not sure that they were looking for additional territorial conquests at the expense of France (they could have taken more in 1871 if that had been the objective), but perhaps could have asked for a few colonies to strengthen its own empire. I agree with you on Belgium and Luxembourg, although swallowing Luxembourg would probably not have been received very well, as it was a fully independent country. There would definitely have been some territorial expansion to the east, at Russia's expense. Annexation of the Baltic provinces is the most likely scenario (there were long-standing territorial claims dating back to the Teutonic knights). They would probably have wanted to expand their interests in the Middle east as well, as it was a personal favorite of Kaiser Wilhelm. They also would have wanted some guarantees about keeping the French military weak (much like the French demanded at Versailles) and to increase their relative power in Europe. The interesting question is what would have been done with Austria-Hungary. I get a sense that a triumphant Germany would have wanted more say in that Empire's affairs, but could not simply carve out bits and pieces as it was nominally an ally. Xuxl (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure you know a lot more about Jewish history than I do. That said, the movement of Jews back to Israel predated the creation of the State by many decades, although granted those who moved there came mainly from central and eastern Europe. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 greatly legitimized the movement and it had supporters in other Jewish communities, although these did not have as much motivation to uproot themselves and move to Israel. World War II and the Holocaust changed perspectives, spreading more broadly the idea that Jews may never be safe unless they lived in their own country. So by itself, this could have led to more migration to Palestine, even without a State of Israel having been created in 1948. But there was so little time between the two events that this cannot be verified, and the Arab-Israeli wars created major push factors that motivated Jewish communities from the Middle East and North Africa to emigrate en masse (Israel was not their sole destination, however). In the case of Ethiopian Jews, there was a deliberate policy by Israel to have them resettled; it's unlikely they would have moved of their own volition. The major unknowns are what would have happened to Palestine, with the increasing Jewish migration there, if the State of Israel had not been created, and what would have been the ripple effects in Arab countries that hosted significant Jewish communities at the time. Xuxl (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding U.S. expansionism, the obvious answer is Panama. I believe there were actual voices in the U.S. in favor of annexation at the time the canal was built, and the Panama Canal Zone was a de facto American possession while it lasted. Haiti was under U.S. occupation for a time, but any thought of annexation were stopped by the country's population make-up (never mind that Haitians would not have been in favor). There was also American adventurer William Walker who usurped the presidency of Nicaragua and attempted to Americanize the country, but it's not clear that he was looking for annexation, or dimply creating his own personal fiefdom. Xuxl (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Xuxl: What about outside of the Western Hemisphere? Futurist110 (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Back to the French Monarchy

For all his personal foibles, Philippe d'Orléans was a pretty successful man and established a strong dynasty that eventually claimed the throne. He was no Louis XV, in terms of personality (i.e not a dilettante only interested in his own pleasures). I expect he would have made a pretty decent king, who would probably have avoided some of his brother's mistakes, like over-extending the kingdom militarily after a few victories early in his reign made him over-confident about France's military might. Specifically, I don't think he would have tried to impose one of his grandsons on the Spanish throne, for example. But would he have had the capacity to tame the noblemen's revolt early in his reign (La Fronde) like his brother did? And would he have picked brilliant administrators who greatly contributed to the kingdom's wealth (Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Louvois, etc.) or would he have been the prey of crooks like Nicolas Fouquet? It's an interesting question, without a clear answer. Xuxl (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Louis XIV did have to handle the fallout from La Fronde, which he did well and used to consolidate his position. That's what I was hinting at. I don't expect being king would have changed Philippe's approach to family life: there's such a political advantage to having some legitimate heirs when you're king that he would probably have handled his preferences just like he did in real life. Which means having an official wife and children for show, and entertaining whatever male friends he wished on the side... Xuxl (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I doubt there was any escape possible for Louis XVI if he had stayed in Paris. The Revolution was getting more radical by the day and he would have eventually been arrested no matter what, as the moderates were being gradually squeezed out. Once the more radical elements came to power, they would have found a motive to have him executed. Now, if the flight had succeeded, I'm not sure he would have been the one to mount a movement to regain his crown. More likely, he would have stayed somewhere safe and waited for either the revolution to collapse of its own weight, or for a foreign power or a coalition to reinstall him by force. A bit what happened to his brother Louis XVIII. Xuxl (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Napoleon did abdicate in favor of his son, but it didn't work, as no one was prepared to support an Empire without him, so it's not a realistic hypothesis. But, that said, the Second Empire (under Napoleon III from 1852 to 1870) is sort of a rebirth of the empire without its founder. So that's what it would have looked like. Xuxl (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I can't help you with science fiction. In fact, I'm not even sure I understand your question... Xuxl (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Let me make another reading suggestion for you: The Crusades Through Arab Eyes by Amin Maalouf. In any case, the Crusader states were always artificial constructions with little staying power. It's actually surprising they lasted as long as they did. The only one that could perhaps have lasted was the Kingdom of Cyprus, given it was isolated by being on an island. Xuxl (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Monarchy as a political system has proven to be surprisingly resilient in the 20th and 21st centuries (so far), although only after evolving into constitutional monarchies with very limited powers. That was not generally the case in 1900, so you have to consider how such evolution would have proceeded (naturally or because of extreme political events). Also, it is difficult to imagine Europe going through the 20th century without major wars: there was enough built-in tension by the start of World War I that something was bound to pop somewhere, and likely bring some outsiders into the fray. That said, you have to identify countries with deep underlying tensions: for example, the nationalist movements in the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires, and social upheaval in Russia and Germany. These would clearly have fragilized their monarchies even absent two wars. Other relatively weakly-established monarchies, such as those in Serbia and Romania, would also likely have found the going rough at some point. And there could also have been abolition followed by restoration, as was seen in France in the 19th century, and Spain in the 20th. It's hard to give a definitive answer, but those are avenues for further thought. Xuxl (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

In 1858, when Felice Orsini attempted to assassinate him, Napoleon III's eldest son was only two years old or so. It's unlikely that a succession would have taken hold, as Napoleon himself was the Third Empire, and everything flowed from him. It had barely been four years since he had staged his coup d'État at the end of his presidential mandate, so there was little legitimacy to the regime except for his own personal popularity. I expect that his death would have led to major political instability, which had been the norm since 1789 anyway, with some calling for a return to the aborted Second Republic, some for a reformed style of republic (what would emerge post-1870) and others for a Bourbon restoration. There probably is no Franco-German war in 1870 either under this scenario, but a rising Germany remains on a collision course with France for supremacy in Europe. Xuxl (talk) 12:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

German unification was being talked about since the first Napoleon's days, and the movement was well afoot by the 1850s. The War of 1870 was the final catalyst, but it was going to happen, one way or another. To expand of what I meant above, I'm not sure that France and Germany would have gone to war so quickly without Napoleon III and his bellicose instincts around. But the two countries were still on a collision course, and pressure was steadily building all over Europe. The 1870 war ended relatively quickly and did not spill over to neighboring countries, but a similar set of circumstances provoked all-out war in 1914... The forces that made World War I possible had been building for quite some time, with Germany trying to build itself a "place in the sun" in Europe a major one. Xuxl (talk) 12:52, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Expansion to the "natural borders" was an old objective in France, even though there's not really a natural northern border. So yes, even without the Revolution, it would have continued to drive policy. The Revolution upended that, because it provided another objective for wars of conquest: bringing the benefits of the revolution to neighbouring countries. Napoleon just continued riding that wave, all the way to ill-conceived adventures in Spain and Russia that ultimately led to his downfall. It was all an aberration, and no one after him tried to reproduce his work. His nephew intervened in Italy, but was not looking to conquer it, and even after being on the victors' side in World War I, France did not attempt to annex Rheinland or Belgium, for example. So that expansionist wave was really a product of very specific times. Xuxl (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Straub v. BMT by Todd

On 9 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Straub v. BMT by Todd, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in his dissent in the Straub v. BMT by Todd case, Indiana Supreme Court Justice Roger Owen DeBruler argued that if someone else promises to pay your share of child support, then their promise should be considered legally binding? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Straub v. BMT by Todd. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Straub v. BMT by Todd), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

New message from Narutolovehinata5

Hello, Futurist110. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Nationality, religion, and language data for the provinces of Thailand.
Message added 09:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

"Palestinian separatism" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Palestinian separatism. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 March 24#Palestinian separatism until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Viennese Waltz 10:19, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Partition of Iraq, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Vox and Amara.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for grossly inappropriate behavior on the Refdesk.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:43, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Futurist110 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to be able to edit outside of the Reference Desks since I never actually engaged in any disruptive behavior outside of the Reference Desks. Indeed, my behavior outside of the Reference Desks was always rather productive, with me creating and/or significantly expanding almost 60 Wikipedia articles over the years. Futurist110 (talk) 19:17, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This unblock request stuns me. Absolutely stuns me. Did you really, honestly, think this unblock request might lead to you being unblocked? Seriously? Because if you did, that basically guarantees you lack sufficient competence to ever edit here. Yamla (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Yamla: You failed to properly understand me here. I was asking for my block here to be limited to the Reference Desks, not for my block here to be completely overturned. I really do wonder which one of us here actually lacks competence or at least proper reading comprehension here. Futurist110 (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: Next time, please don't ask any questions where answering the relevant question might get me in trouble, will you? Futurist110 (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs: And for what it's worth, the focus of my attraction was on the twinkish features–which can also be found in some post-pubescent males, such as here: https://twitter.com/dawnxmode?lang=en But never did I actually suggest that I would ever like to engage in any sort of underage relationship or anything like that. And I made it clear that the overwhelming focus of my sexuality is on ADULT WOMEN. But Yeah, I do suppose that you'll arouse the lynch mob against anyone who finds a fully clothed photo of a 13-year-old or even 15-year-old "jailbait" attractive even if they never actually intend to do anything about this attraction other than fapping–now isn't that correct? After all, anyone who ever has any bad attractions and/or bad thoughts needs to get lynched, right? Futurist110 (talk) 02:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Futurist110 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm sorry for what I did. I shouldn't have talked about whom I am attracted to on Wikipedia, even if I was only responding to Baseball Bugs's question. I won't do it again. Wikipedia certainly isn't the place for these types of discussions–though maybe Quora is, considering that I have also asked this question on there with astronomically less fuss and hoopla in regards to this. That said, though, I still don't understand why exactly my edit ban applies to Wikipedia as a whole and not to the Reference Desks in particular. No one has ever discussed the idea of a complete and total Wikipedia edit ban for me before; it was always proposed to be exclusively limited to the Reference Desks. So, just what exactly changed in regards to this? And for what it's worth, I would like a reviewer different from Yamla, whose tone and attitude towards me I did not like very much. Futurist110 (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The issue concerns the purpose of Wikipedia. Consider June 2015 + February 2017 + September 2017 + April 2021 (permalink) together with WP:NOTHERE and WP:CHILDPROTECT. I believe any appeal would have to be by email to WP:ARBCOM. Johnuniq (talk) 02:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Jayron32: Do you know why exactly my block applies to all of Wikipedia rather than only to the Wikipedia Reference Desks? Futurist110 (talk) 01:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)