Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 05:39, 15 September 2020

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

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.

September 7

Criminal Justice Reform

What are the 2020 presidential candidates' platforms regarding criminal justice reform? Or, where can I find this information? 2600:1700:CBD0:C50:D066:FE87:479D:1637 (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On their campaign websites? Futurist110 (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential election in which country? Fgf10 (talk) 07:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has done more for criminal justice reform than President Trump, and if elected he will continue to restore the greatness of the criminal justice system that Democrats have hijacked and dismantled. For more lack of detail, see www.donaldjtrump.com. For the boring and weak ideas that nobody wants to see anyway of Sleepy Joe who is a puppet controlled by the terrorist anarchists roaming the streets of the Democrat-controlled zones of chaos and destruction, see joebiden.com/justice/. --Lambiam 07:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a disinterested and doubtless under-informed spectator peering from a distant continent, it nonetheless appears to my occluded perception that Lambiam's answer above may perhaps include a less than complete neutrality of viewpoint. Possibly I may have failed to detect any intentional irony that may have been intended, but if so I fear that others, with perhaps less than my own six decades of native English usage, may also have done so. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.2.158 (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first half of my response mainly consists of text snippets, mildly paraphrased to fit into grammatical sentences while retaining the semantic content, but otherwise taken almost verbatim from the website and from the main source of information regarding policy positions, being the tweets and public statements of the candidate. You are welcome to help answering the question by finding more specific or concrete policy statements. The second part has been formulated in the same vein so as to avoid an abrupt change of style. --Lambiam 14:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the choice of words deployed by user:Lambian seem unsuitable for the reference desk. The RD should neither be the furniture for partisan propaganda nor should it be the pulpit for ad hominem attacks. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that the third responder above mistakenly took phrases from the GOP website about the Democratic candidate, rather than posting factual information about the policy positions of the Democratic candidate. This can be a common mistake among those depending on echo chambers for their opinions. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should hope that everyone can understand that the formulation was tongue-in-cheek, and with respect to the characterization of candidate Joseph R. Biden not so much taking phrases from the GOP website, but using directly the language coming from the horse's mouth, such as an SNL skit might also use – but perhaps some people have never heard the other candidate speak. The first response above referred the questioner to the campaign websites of the candidates. For the Democratic candidate that is a fair (although somewhat lazy) response, but I provided a link to the relevant section of the website of the Democratic campaign, which is clear and succinct; there would be no point in attempting to summarize it here. Not so for the other website. The first respondent added a question mark to their response, possibly meant rhetorically; well, the answer to that question, "On their campaign websites?", taken on its face value, is "no, not for both campaigns". What I wrote are the most concrete policy statements I could find, although I did not read every last sentence on the site. Isn't "For more lack of detail, see ..." a clear giveaway? --Lambiam 18:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. And it's also a great advertisement for always reading through to the end of a post, rather than knee-jerkily reacting after the first few words. But maybe some quotation marks wouldn't have gone astray. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Charlie Brown says (every Christmas), "Don't you know sarcasm when you hear it?" :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes it's done on purpose, to see who bites. Long before the internet, Society for Indecency to Naked Animals was an example of such a thing. More recently, I suspect QAnon might be likewise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Intentionally trying to upset people is called trolling. --Jayron 32 12:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The SINA thing was long before the internet, and could be called "hoaxing". QAnon is engaged in hoaxing, and I'm sure its perps would gladly plead guilty to the charge of "trolling". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parsees under apartheidt

How were Parsees classified under apartheid in South Africa? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 04:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian. See Apartheid#Legislation 41.165.67.114 (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't mention Parsees. Where they treated as Indian or Persian, and for that matter, how were Persians treated? DuncanHill (talk) 12:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not my specialist subject, but our Parsees article says that they emigrated from Persia to the Indian subcontinent in the 10th century, which is going to make them Indian by almost any definition. On the subject of actual Persians, there doesn't seem to be a large Iranian community in South Africa but there are Lebanese people in South Africa, which "during the apartheid era were classified as white". Alansplodge (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See List of countries by Zoroastrian population. 2A00:23C6:2403:E900:9844:6164:682A:D268 (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

help finding Ng'wanamalundi

Hi does anybody have access to a copy of Ngoma ya Ng'wanamalundi (Swahili Edition) Mbogo, E ISBN 10: 9966839089 ISBN 13: 9789966839084

Working on topic at swwiki. Electronic copy would be appreciated, or at least the ToC / intro as a first step. Kipala (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are 4 print editions (no electronic formats): "Formats and Editions of Ngoma ya ng'wanamalundi". www.worldcat.org.

You can find the nearest library with a copy here (good luck): "Ngoma ya ng'wanamalundi". www.worldcat.org. or here: "Ngoma ya ng'wanamalundi". Google Books (in Swahili).

ISBN 9966839089 --107.15.157.44 (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Snook - 1883 article

This is a long shot: this eBay listing is for an 1883 magazine or book article, about William Snook. What is the source? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judging from the rightmost page there, it's The Sporting Mirror magazine. There are also other volumes on eBay, like this. Brandmeister^talk 19:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! I looked at that image, and completely missed the top line. Thank you. I can see "number XXXI (31) volume VI (6)", but the date is unreadable. It's August, and could be 1883 (Vol II ran from July to Dec 1881). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed here and added to the article as "further reading". Now to track down a copy! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tombstone inscription

Why does here the tombstone read "His wife" when seemingly her husband Hummel is still alive? Looks weird also because it would be otherwise unclear whom "his" refers to. Is this a thing on real graves? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, its a movie, so who knows what liberties they took with actual practice. That said, in a U.S. military cemetary, both husband and wife are buried in same plot. In this case, the husband served in the military and will get the front of the tombstone, and his wife will get the back of the tombstone with the husband's name on the front. When the husband dies his info will be added to the tombstone. Thus, it reads "his wife" where "his" means the person who is still alive but will be buried with her. RudolfRed (talk) 00:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that makes sense. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be customary at Arlington National Cemetery. For two examples, see here for the couple Francis J. Witt, Jr., and his wife (pre-deceased) Mary Lou, and here for Frederick Charles Frost and his wife Nita Conner. Note that in both cases the wife's name is the first line, followed by "his wife", which makes sense but is not the order seen in the opening shots of The Rock.

September 9

Is there an Ohio Death Record for Jennie S. Papa on Ancestry.com?

Is there an Ohio Death Record for Jennie S. Papa (1909-2008) on Ancestry.com? If so, what does it give for her birthplace? I don't mean Italy, but rather the specific city in Italy. I am asking because Jennie is the sister of supercentenarian Michael DeSantis (1899-2009), a case that I am trying to research more into:

https://gerontology.wikia.org/wiki/Michael_DeSantis

The issue with verifying Mr. DeSantis's case is that he and his family apparently weren't in the US in either 1900 or 1910, so they're not enumerated in either of those two US Censuses. So, the earliest record that we have found for him so far is a 1918 World War I draft registration card (which gives his birth date as May 26, 1899, just like he claimed). If we were able to find out where exactly in Italy Mr. DeSantis and his family lived when his sister Jennie was born in 1909, then maybe I and/or someone else would be able to uncover additional early-life evidence in favor of his claimed age. Futurist110 (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry's Social Security Applications and Claims Index says Jennie S. Papa AKA Vincenza Scianna was born in "Baghina, Italy". No such place seems to exist. A census record suggests she arrived in the United States in 1916, but I have not seen any passenger manifests related to that which might have better detail with that name. If the AKA Vincenza Scianna is correct, however, she likely hailed from Bagheria in Sicily, based on a passenger manifest. I cannot find an Ohio death record. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Vincenza Scianna is actually her, though. Could you do a search for Genevieve Papa and/or Genoveffa Papa instead? According to the US SSDI, her lifespan should be 1909-2008, as I mentioned above. Futurist110 (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her parents' names should be Quinton/Querino DeSantis and Angela Volpi/Volpe. Futurist110 (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On second look, you're probably right that the Vincenza Scianna is incorrect. Another record with that AKA says it's Jennie Pappa, and the parents' names don't come close to matching what you provide. I was able to find another person's family tree that linked to an Ellis Island record for Angela Volpe, returning with her U.S.-born children on 20 May 1911. The listed "last permanent residence" town is Roccaraso (high confidence I'm reading it correctly), and place of birth may be Rivisondoli (only medium confidence on this due to some pretty obvious inconsistencies on the lines for the children). I think that's as good as I'm going to get. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Rivisondoli Angela's birth place or Jennie's birth place? Also, would it be against the rules for you to e-mail me a copy of this record? In addition to the information for Jennie, I'm also curious about the information that this record gives for Michael. Futurist110 (talk) 00:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angela. I didn't read the other names (these handwritten records are a pain in the neck). You can view it yourself for free at Familysearch: [1]. Angela is on line 11 (the number is crossed out and 10 written in). The birthplace column is the last one on the subsequent page. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 01:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you! Amazing and excellent find/discovery on your own part! :) I have now posted this research on the 110 Club forum (which is where we post supercentenarian research): https://the110club.com/michael-desantis-1899-2009-us-pa-t4392-s60.html#p40095140 ; anyway, if you want credit for this research (and really, I don't want to steal credit from you for this), you can e-mail the Gerontology Research Group and tell them your name and about this 1911 document for Michael DeSantis and his family that you discovered. (You could also pass your name on to me and then I could give it to the GRG, but I don't know if you actually want that. You could also remain anonymous if you want, in which case you'll get credit for this verification as being "Anonymous".) Futurist110 (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: On this record, 12-year-old Michele DeSante is very likely Michael DeSantis (it even lists him as being born in Charleroi, Pennsylvania, just like he claimed later on in his life) and 2-year-old Genoveffa DeSante is very likely the future Jennie Pap(p)a. Futurist110 (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spouse of head of state/government belonging to a different political party

I don't think any American first lady has ever belonged to a different political party than her husband. (At least not during their spouse's term in office.) Can anyone think of an example, from any country, of a spouse of a head of state or head of government who is known to have belonged to a different political party during the period that their spouse was in office? Thanks. LANTZY ^TALK 12:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

During Slobodan Milošević's presidency, his wife led the Yugoslav Left (JUL), whilst he led the Socialist Party of Serbia (SPS). One could argue that JUL and SPS were allied, but they were distinct political parties. --Soman (talk) 13:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a country, but Maria Shriver was a Democrat while First Lady of California; her husband is a Republican. 59.124.6.175 (talk) 06:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing with the California theme, Democratic governor Gavin Newsom's first wife Kimberly Guilfoyle is now a Republican official and is also Donald Trump Jr's girlfriend. Newsom's current wife Jennifer Siebel Newsom was formerly a Republican and then accidentally joined the far right American Independent Party, incorrectly thinking that made her an "independent". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we're counting "former", Hillary Clinton was a Goldwater Girl during AuH2O's presidential run in the 1960s. I don't know if Bill Clinton was doing anything political at that time. James Carville (Democratic operative) and Mary Matalin (Republican ditto) are another married "odd couple", though I don't think either ever held office. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

International borders and social mobility

Which international border has the greatest difference between the levels of social mobility between the countries on either side?

I’m open to gauging social mobility by whatever metric gives the ability to evaluate the greatest number of borders. I’d like something a bit less crude than GDP, but if that’s all there is I’ll take it. HDI might work? The Global Social Mobility Index would be ideal, but only covers 82 countries.

Optional follow-up questions:

Which borders have a greater difference in social mobility than the US/Mexico border?
What level of security is in operation at such borders?
What levels of annual legal and illegal migration are seen at such borders?

Thanks for your help! - Cucumber Mike (talk) 20:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article you linked doesn't have data on social mobility for North Korea, but I would guess that the North Korea-South Korea border would have the greatest difference between the two countries involved. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Among the adjacent pairs of countries covered by the list at Global Social Mobility Index, Spain–Morocco, China–Pakistan and Israel–Egypt would have larger differences than US–Mexico. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So do Norway-Russia and Finland-Russia, although those differences are not as large as those mentioned by Fut.Perf. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The North/South Korean border must be near the top of the list. LongHairedFop (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already mentioned that, just three posts above yours. --Viennese Waltz 11:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australia's maritime borders might also be worth considering, and I think there is plenty of data. Asylum in Australia would be one starting point. And for another source, perhaps the World Bank report on intergenerational social mobility (you can get a pdf from here [2] might be another way in. At a quick glance, the maps at the end show data on some of the countries that are blank on the map in the article you linked, so it might fill in some gaps. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 13:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australia's only shared maritime border in the usual sense is with Papua New Guinea -- see "Top Western islands"... AnonMoos (talk)

Is there any law preventing Australian citizens in good standing from simply leaving the country? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, yes. Many of us cannot even leave our suburbs, let alone our cities or states, or the country. There are exceptions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:19, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An easily overlooked border is that between France and Suriname. I don't know the social mobility index value for Suriname, but its GDP per capita is comparable to that of Colombia. --Lambiam 23:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of this type of fallacy, almost like a strawman?

Some example, person 1, believe A is happening and/or B is true. Based at that the fact that "A is happening" and "B is true", he believe that X, Y and Z must be done or made legal.

Person 2 (that dont believe A is happening or B is true) is arguing against this guy and say "doing X, Y and Z is stupid/evil....." (at this world where A is not happening and B is not true).

So person 2 attack person 1 arguments that X, Y and Z must be done, from the point of view of a world where A is not happening and B is not true.

This is not exactly a strawman because person 2 say person 1 believe X, Y and Z must be done, a thing person 1 really said. But he implies person 1 believe thing X, Y and Z must be done at a world where A is not happening and B is not true.2804:7F2:594:C5BD:1CEC:4E9B:AAB6:95D6 (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that what you describe is a reasoning error or "fallacy" -- there's a dispute over premises, which naturally transfers to what is inferred from the premises. There is a fallacy of Denying the antecedent... AnonMoos (talk) 03:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly this. Disputing the premises upon which the other party bases his argument is not only not a fallacy, it's good argumentation, and can be tactically far more powerful than attacking the other party's argument directly because the failure to provide any justification for those bases suggests that the other party lacks a justification or failed to realize a justification might be needed. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 04:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is also a sneaky tactic if the second party actually agrees with the other party's premises, but conceals this in order to undermine the argument by mounting an attack on the basis of the argument rather than the argument itself. In legal disputes before a court, and particularly in jurisdictions where the rule applies that an unrebutted allegation may be viewed as a concession (see e.g. Rule 56(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), this is common practice. --Lambiam 13:01, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User 199.66.69.67, person 2 is not disputing the premise, he just keeps saying that doing X, Y and Z is evil/stupid. The problem/fallacy is that he keeps doing that in a way that shows that he is saying that doing X, Y and Z is evil or stupid, under a world where his premises (and not the person 1 premises) are right premises.

Imagine person 1 and 2 are stranded at the sea and person 1 thinks he needs to drink seawater to not die from dehydration, person 2 believes that drinking sea water brings you closer to dehydration. Person 2, instead of trying to prove that drinking sea water is not a ok thing like person 1 believes, start to talk about how at a world where drinking water makes you more dehydrated, drinking it would be a pretty stupid idea and that person 1 is stupid for wanting to drink the water. The thing that is happening here, is that person 2 is not really attacking the person 1 argument/conclusion, because this argument implies some premise and if you change the premise of course a new conclusion is necessar So person 2 is saying person 1 conclusion is stupid under his premise while acting like he is saying its wrong under person 1 premise.

So he is not really saying person 1 said something else he didnt, and attacked that, like what would happen under strawman fallacy (he says person 1 said drinking sea water is what they should do and that was really what person 1 said) , but he implies the person 1 conclusion is a conclusion to person 2 premises and attack that.2804:7F2:594:C5BD:C0E4:31BD:6CAC:12EA (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2804:7F2:594:C5BD:C0E4:31BD:6CAC:12EA -- Insofar as I follow your explanation, Person 2 disputes Person 1's premises, but doesn't directly talk about the premises, but instead talks about things which can be deduced from the premises (or the consequences of the premises). That seems to me more like a rhetorical strategy than a logical fallcy... AnonMoos (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

Who would be responsible to remove an unwilling Trump?

Since about a year we have been seeing more and more people raising concerns that Trump may refuse to abdicate the presidency if he incurs an electoral defeat in 2020. Some politicians like Pelosi have nonchalantly disavowed such concerns and put their unassailable faith in the American system of government, while others like Biden have echoed them and Sanders even considers crafting legal precautions.

My question is, which apparently has no been addressed by any politician or news media so far, which government agency would be responsible to accompany Trump out of the White House if he physically insists to remain. Colonestarrice (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret Service would physically remove him from the White House like they would with any other trespasser. Once Inauguration Day comes, unless he's been reelected by the Electoral College he's no longer the President. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 19:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The agents of the Secret Service must follow the orders of the Director, a Trump appointee after a shake-up. The latter operates under the direction of the Secretary of Homeland Security, currently vacant, but the acting Secretary, a staunch Trump supporter, is a designated Trump appointee whose legality is disputed after the position became vacant through another shake-up. Who in the line of authority will then step forward and categorize the present Occupant as a tresspasser and give the order to remove them? --Lambiam 23:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If Biden wins, he'll be in position to re-fill those positions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't know, that wasn't the question OP asked. I don't think it really matters. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely what I was thinking. It is naive to believe that these officials will remove their appointer, ally, and (former) superior. Biden may be legally empowered to replace them once inaugurated, but I believe that trump will not even allow for a transition to occur. I mean does anyone here genuinely think that Trump will sit down with Biden for more than two month and quietly observe how his power vanishes? Colonestarrice (talk) 09:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is "deep state"-tier reasoning. That is, it's tantamount to believing the same nonsense about career federal employees working to undermine the Presidency. The people within the executive branch all have their own lives they care about, and would benefit not one whit by assisting Trump in unlawfully occupying the White House after the end of his presidency. Beyond that you're saying "What if there's a coup?" If that's your question, I would refer you to articles about historical coups d'état, because the resolution of an American one would certainly mirror those historical ones. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A coup d'etat attempt by Trump would likely result in the American people forcefully removing him--if necessary, through outright revolution--just like Ukrainians previously removed Yanukovych in 2014 through the Maidan Revolution. Futurist110 (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If his coup d'etat is successful, he would command the world's most powerful military by far and various critical federal law enforcement agencies. Additionally, he would be backed by millions of his gun-loving cultists. So it does not look particularly good for the other side. Colonestarrice (talk) 09:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most Trump appointees are Trump loyalists and not career employees. They have a lot to loose if the Trump presidency is over – but what if there has been fraud on an unprecedented scale with mail-in voting, with many hundreds of thousands of returned ballots filled out by dogs, dead people, and illegal aliens. Which candidate won the election, and therefore whether the Trump presidency is over, may still be actively being contested by legal and extra-legal means. I may think it is over, you may think it is over, but will they think it is over? --Lambiam 21:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, if the question is "What if there's a coup?" my response is to refer to any number of articles on historical coups d'état. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you summarize what we are supposed to learn from that? Some dictators (e.g. Nicolae Ceaușescu, Adolf Hitler, Augustus, Julius Caesar; I bet there are plenty of others) originally came to power in a regular process, but once in power consolidated their position to the point where they could not be ousted through a democratic process. They usurped powers in an unconstitutional way, but no High Court was going to rule against them. At no time did this drift into authoritarianism involve a step considered a coup. --Lambiam 20:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think it’s appropriate to respond given the question deals more with recommendations and value judgments than straightforward questions of legal responsibility (which is what the OP’s original question addressed). As this question has been asked and answered I think it would be appropriate for this thread to be closed before someone unintentionally breaches WP:ARBAPDS. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original question was about responsibility. Your answer given to the question was, on the face of it, not about legal responsibility. It took the form of a prediction about the factual course of events, should a certain contingency arise. Among the possible scenarios, there is certainly the possibility that the responsible people will behave responsibly under these unprecedented circumstances, but given that a certain party, who hgas appointed loyalists in key positions, is then apparently behaving extremely irresponsibly, this should not be taken for granted. Indeed, as you may have seen, the consideration of various scenarios has become a major topic in the mainstream media, and these scenarious include irregular behaviour by various formally responsible high-ranking officers (without indulging in conspiracy theories involving a deep state). Theory is one thing, the world we find ourselves in is another thing. For that reason, I thought it necessary to add a note to your answer pointing out that the situation might not be resolved as smoothly as your answer suggested. --Lambiam 11:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Remember WP:BLP. Anyway if a president doesn't allow a transition team to be involved, that's unfortunate and it may make the transition rougher. However ultimately many countries with varying systems are able to deal with fairly abrupt transitions. The US if anything seems better placed than even a number that do deal with them. Nil Einne (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not abdication. The Orange One isn't a monarch. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm well aware of that, I chose the term 1) since he's not so far away from being one 2) for the sake of eloquence and humorous exaggeration. Colonestarrice (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to see Arnold Schwarzenegger go into the Oval Office and tell him, "You're fired!" Clarityfiend (talk) 07:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are getting into WP:CRYSTALBALL territory here. It was fine to ask who would be responsible for removing someone from the White House (answer: Secret Service)... but we cross the line when we share our opinions on whether this might or might not actually happen. Blueboar (talk) 22:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've all fallen into his trap. The thing he likes most of all is having people talk about him. It matters not whether it's positive or negative commentary. It's exactly the same strategy that babies use to get what they need. Attention is the only thing that matters. So, he says he might not accept the result of the election. Obediently, millions of tongues start wagging in earnest consideration of the legal and constitutional ramifications. He's got you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 12:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder if he reads Wikipedia, or if he has his little people do that for him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to see a scenario where Biden or Trump is certified the winner of the election by the Electoral College, and the other one refuses to get out of the way. A post-election-day dispute is more likely to involve legal battles over the votes in various states, with the idea of each trying to stop the other guy's electors (electoral college appointees) from getting certified: something like the 2000 Florida recount but maybe in multiple states at the same time, maybe with more riots, and that sort of thing. If the electoral college doesn't certify a winner, there are various paths from there: election decided by the House of Representatives (whatever its makeup is after January 1); goes to Speaker of the House (I remember something about Pelosi stepping down from this post next term, so someone else would get it next); then goes to President Pro Tem of the Senate (traditionally the senior member of the majority party, but that is not a law), etc. There is a scenario someone gamed out someplace where the entire November election is either cancelled or voided outright. In that case, the President, VP, and all the House of Representatives terms expire, along with 1/3 of the Senators' terms, so all those offices are vacant. The President pro tem (and therefore POTUS) post would apparently go to Sen. Pat Leahy (D-VT) in that situation (based on identifying exactly which Senators remained after the expirations). But Leahy is pretty old and maybe could be convinced to not take the job. So there would be jockying over the Pres. pro tem post, with the person claiming it's likely that the more energetic and ambitious Sen. Chuck Schumer would end up snagging it. It is pretty far out there though. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 09:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrumph. The Electoral College does not certify anything. It never even meets. Its members meet in each state and the voting results are sent to the Senate, which adds them up and certifies the results. See the 12th Amendment, first two paragraphs. --174.88.168.23 (talk) 05:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Pet Leahy and similar analysis of expiring Senator terms etc has been considered in several places including some mostly looking at it from a legal standpoint [3] [4]. While I agree it's fairly far out there, I think it is an interest analysis in so much as many people who've considered the "cancelling presidential election" angle say even if it is possible, Trump wouldn't still be president next year but ignore that as unlikely as cancelling the presidential election may seem, cancelling the presidential election while simultaneously still running the Congressional ones seems even more unlikely. Of course taking it further, you then have to consider whether the governor's can appoint senators to fill the vacant seats etc, and therefore who these governor's are likely to be. Nil Einne (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a rather simple solution: in the event of a disagreement over who really is POTUS, make me the interim POTUS. As a Canadian, everyone knows I will be polite and easy to get along with and will be most fair as the disagreement works its way out! Given how long that will likely take, it will give me time to access my resources and solidify my base. In that way I can ensure my power and make America Canada's 11th Province . . . 69.42.176.50 (talk) 14:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 12

Swedish American State Bank, Chicago

I stumbled over this bank building in Chicago on a blog and got curious about the bank itself and its history, and about who its presumably Swedish-immigrant founders might have been. (I have often heard it repeated that Chicago about 1900 or so had a Swedish population larger than that of Stockholm, and this appears to have been a predominantly Swedish neighbourhood.) But lo and behold, Wikipedia had absolutely nothing on the Swedish American State Bank. The building appears to be regarded as a local landmark, but the bank seems to be mostly forgotten. Googling the name turns up a bank in Courtland, Kansas with the same name. I assume it could be the sole remaining branch of a once-larger bank that also owned the Andersonville building, or another company that at some point took over the name. So, if someone has an interest in Swedish-American history, Chicago local history or the banking history of the Midwestern U.S. and more time than I do to research it, here is a subject for you to write about. --Hegvald (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The names of the officers and directors in 1912 of the newly established Swedish American State Bank in Chocago do not sound particularly Swedish.^[5] In 1918 there are SASBs in Courtland, Kansas, and St. Paul, Minnesota.^[6] --Lambiam 21:34, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The bank was founded to serve the large Swedish population that settled in Edgewater's southwestern edge around Clark Street, between Foster and Bryn Mawr Avenues, which became known as "Andersonville." The free and unusual interpretation of the Classical Revival style of architecture is characteristic of the architectural firm of Ottenheimer, Stern and Reicher". [7]

"The 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition had a big impact on architecture in Chicago. The Fair buildings were designed in a Classical Revival style, specifically that of the Beaux Arts. Subsequently, after the Fair, classical buildings were popping up all over Chicago. A style that implies great dignity, it was a natural choice for a bank". [8]

September 14

Foreign translations before native language publications

I've noticed that, for example, the Russian translation of Krzysztof Boruń's novel Próg nieśmiertelności came earlier than the original Polish publication (in 1967 and 1975, respectively). How is that possible? Did the translator obtain the pre-print manuscript or something else? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With that much of a date difference the only thing that makes sense to me is that the author was initially unable to find a Polish publisher, and so allowed the work to be released in translated form first. Or are you sure that you have the correct date for the Polish release? Might it have been released in serialized form in magazines and only later collected as a book? --Khajidha (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The dates are correct. And according to this Russian source, the same happened to his another novel Ósmy krąg piekieł which "had not been published for a long time in the author's homeland and was first published in Polish in 1978". Yet for some reason the Russian translation of it came in 1966. Perhaps, unable to publish in Poland, he decided to give those two manuscripts for translation first. Weird. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

During the Cold War, lots of Eastern European authors had their manuscripts published in translation in the West before they were printed in their native language around that time, largely because they were in political disfavor and could not get published by the state-controlled presses. Their works used to circulate in samizdat form in its original form, but were easier to find in translation. Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Josef Skvorecky are examples. Now, the title the OP mentions is from that time and place, but having it published in Russian first is indeed unusual. Someone else will know the story behind this, hopefully. Xuxl (talk) 20:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an add-on, there are some authors who are more popular in translation than in their original language, usually because some influential reader has given their works a push outside their native country, something which has not happened in their home language. Xuxl (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on the author on the Polish and Russian Wikipedia's both also state that these two novels appeared in Russian and Ukrainian translations well before they were published in Polish, but offer no further explanation. Perhaps there was something that offended the Polish censors but did not bother the Soviet censors so much. It took Stanisław Lem seven years to get the first work the wrote approved by the censors. Or perhaps the versions published in the Soviet Union were published in censored form, which was not uncommon in these days. The versions of The Master and Margarita published in Soviet Russia from 1966 on were also "adjusted" to the sensibilities of the regime, obviously without the consent of the author who had died long before, both by cutting out whole sections and by changing words. --Lambiam 20:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Protestants among Russian Germans

Among all of the Germans in the Russian Empire and Soviet Union, just how many non-Protestants were there? I have the impression that most of these Germans were Protestants but I'm wondering if there were ever any sizable non-Protestant German communities in the Russian Empire and/or Soviet Union--and, if so, where exactly? Futurist110 (talk) 21:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 15

@@ Line 177: / Line 177: @@
 It's hard to see a scenario where Biden or Trump is certified the winner of the election by the Electoral College, and the other one refuses to get out of the way.  A post-election-day dispute is more likely to involve legal battles over the votes in various states, with the idea of each trying to stop the other guy's electors (electoral college appointees) from getting certified: something like the 2000 [[Florida recount]] but maybe in multiple states at the same time, maybe with more riots, and that sort of thing.  If the electoral college doesn't certify a winner, there are various paths from there: election decided by the House of Representatives (whatever its makeup is after January 1); goes to Speaker of the House (I remember something about Pelosi stepping down from this post next term, so someone else would get it next); then goes to President Pro Tem of the Senate (traditionally the senior member of the majority party, but that is not a law), etc.  There is a scenario someone gamed out someplace where the entire November election is either cancelled or voided outright.  In that case, the President, VP, and all the House of Representatives terms expire, along with 1/3 of the Senators' terms, so all those offices are vacant.  The President pro tem (and therefore POTUS) post would apparently go to Sen. [[Pat Leahy]] (D-VT) in that situation (based on identifying exactly which Senators remained after the expirations).  But Leahy is pretty old and maybe could be convinced to not take the job. So there would be jockying over the Pres. pro tem post, with the person claiming it's likely that the more energetic and ambitious Sen. [[Chuck Schumer]] would end up snagging it.  It is pretty far out there though. [[Special:Contributions/2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D|2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D]] ([[User talk:2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D|talk]]) 09:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
+::*Harrumph. The Electoral College does not certify anything. It never even meets. Its members meet in each state and the voting results are sent to the Senate, which adds them up and certifies the results. See the [[Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Text|12th Amendment]], first two paragraphs. --[[Special:Contributions/174.88.168.23|174.88.168.23]] ([[User talk:174.88.168.23|talk]]) 05:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 :The Pet Leahy and similar analysis of expiring Senator terms etc has been considered in several places including some mostly looking at it from a legal standpoint [//openargs.com/oa370-can-trump-cancel-the-election-and-other-covid-19-questions/] [//www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQLbNekBU1A]. While I agree it's fairly far out there, I think it is an interest analysis in so much as many people who've considered the "cancelling presidential election" angle say even if it is possible, Trump wouldn't still be president next year but ignore that as unlikely as cancelling the presidential election may seem, cancelling the presidential election while simultaneously still running the Congressional ones seems even more unlikely. Of course taking it further, you then have to consider whether the governor's can appoint senators to fill the vacant seats etc, and therefore who these governor's are likely to be. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 13:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
 {{clear}}