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

September 16

What part of Amos is most likely to be written in c. 750s BCE?

Dating the Bible says that was only the initial composition of earliest layer. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

According to Brevard Childs in Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture, the oldest kernel in Amos was found in chapters 3-6, as distinguished by Hans Walter Wolff. This kernel, along with the visions from ch. 7-9 and some early redactions, was attributed to Amos himself and his contemporaries in the eighth century. bibliomaniac15 23:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Are there any Bible verses that are older than Amos to almost everyone? Maybe large disagreements on how much older exactly (i.e. Genesis 1 is 4004 BCE to some and younger than Amos to most atheists and agnostics) but general consensus on older. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Your question is hard to answer. First, you're conflating the time that the events that were written with the (purported) time that the events took place. Second, there's little agreement about when different parts of the Bible were written, or if we want to expand things, when they originated, considering that the oral tradition could have predated what was written by a considerable amount of time. You would have to be more specific about what you want in your question. bibliomaniac15 03:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Right I should've said c. 1400s BC for Genesis 1, still a very large disagreement as the scientific view is many centuries later. I'm wondering if I read those parts of Amos in Young's Literal Translation or that word-to-word thing with alien (Hebrew) word order should I consider that close to the words of c. 750s BCE person(s) and is that as old as it gets without some mainstream experts starting to doubt? Like the very old-fashioned Hebrew of Exodus 15 has convinced some non-believers it's up to 13th century BCE old but it's not a fringe theory that it might've reached mostly final form after 750 BCE so that wouldn't count. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

If you're including traditional dating schemes, most traditional (inside-the-faith) sources ascribe the writing of the Torah/Pentateuch to Moses, so circa 16th century - 14th century BCE, depending on which traditional date for Moses's life you ascribe to; modern scholars don't ascribe to this dating however. As another idea, the Genesis flood narrative bears many similarities to earlier flood narratives (c.f. Gilgamesh flood myth and also compare Utnapishtim to Noah), so if that narrative is a version of the older flood narrative story, the flood story may be the oldest story in the Bible, dating to at least the third millenium BCE. --Jayron32 15:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

That's the oldest lower bound I just mentioned, which only true believers believe. 1494 BCE was the Ussherian sea parting I think. It's not even the oldest lower bound as Job is c. 2000 BCE to Young Earth creationists. I'm wondering what's the oldest upper bound that isn't a fringe theory. Perhaps it's Amos 3-6, perhaps it's some poetry that was later added to J, E, D, P or elsewhere but I haven't got a clue, when I learned most of my Bible knowledge I harrumphed at any non-Young Earth creationist date I saw without remembering many.. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Two of the oldest passages are "The Song of the Sea" and "The Song of Deborah", which were originally freestanding poems that probably existed before there was a Bible as we know it today, and were later incorporated into the Bible... AnonMoos (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

September 17

Blowing the Shofar on erev Rosh Hashanah

It is a custom among the Ashkenazim to blow the Shofar each weekday morning at the end of the shacharit service, throughout the month of Elul. However, on erev Rosh Hashanah, one does not do so, in order to make a distinction between the customary blowing during the month of Elul and the obligatory blowing on Rosh Hashanah, and this also applies if erev Rosh Hashanah occurs on a Friday. However the "Authorised Daily Prayer Book of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Empire" (popularly known as the "Singer's Prayer Book") states that if erev Rosh Hashanah occurs on a Friday, one does blow the Shofar. I cannot find a source for this which is brought in the Singer's Prayer Book. Can any user please let me know the source for this. Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Not sure if this helps, but I found The authorised Daily Prayer Book of the United Hebrew congregations of the British Empire (London, 1904). Alansplodge (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you Alansplodge. However this is the source where I found it, and I am searching for the source from where they took it. כתיבה וחתימה טובה Simonschaim (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes. That makes sense. Sorry, no luck on that. Alansplodge (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Not a source, but a possible reason for this exception. The point of not performing the customary Elul blowing on the eve of Rosh Hashanah is to create a hiatus to set the blowing of the shofar apart. The shofar would not be customarily sounded on a Shabbat, so if it is blown on Shabbat, that by itself already sets it apart from the customary blowing, and no hiatus is needed. In that case erev Rosh Hashanah falls on a Friday.  --Lambiam 21:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. However, משנה ברורה brings in שער הציון that כיון שאומרים זכרון תרועה הוי כמו תקיעה. Simonschaim (talk) 11:46, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

US Wars

I have looked at List of US wars and have counted 118 wars that the USA has been involved in. I may have counted wrong, so please allow me some leeway either way. My question is; is this list comprehensive as I have heard that there is a place in the USA which has a list of each war the USA has been involved in and that there is a stone for each war and that these stones ring the hotel (?) several times. Where is this place, I believe it is on the east coast as I was told by someone who did a road trip from Florida to Canada up the east coast. In summary, how may wars has the USA been involved in and where is the aforementioned place. Thanks -- 11:11, 17 September 2020 86.186.232.90

1) Is a formal declaration necessary for something to count as a war? 2) How large a scale conflict is required? 3) Which conflicts count separately? Looking at that list, you could reduce it by quite a bit by just having one entry for "Cold War" and not the various portions thereof. --Khajidha (talk) 11:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Same with the Indian Wars. Yeah, that list seems a little over enthusiastic; I was expecting to find War on drugs in there. Every tax protest is a war? Matt Deres (talk) 19:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• Per Khajidha, what are your parameters for what would count as "a war"? First you need to define your parameters and terms, and then we can make a count of all of the events that meet that definition. --Jayron32 15:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  The same question may be asked for our own List of US wars article. If we can find which place has the ring of stones, maybe we can figure out what definition they use.  --Lambiam 20:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  Agreed, the article should have a clear definition. That or it should be retitled to List of US military engagements or something similar. I’m sure someone from the military history wikiproject will be interested in this question and they should probably be linked into any discussion at the start. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

  You could ask the good folks on WikiProject Military History to look at how the article defines its entries. They can be contacted on Wikipedia_talk : WikiProject_Military_history ---- LongHairedFop (talk) 08:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

A F Olden, Norwegian Peace Society

One A F Olden, described as Chairman of the Norwegian Peace Society, contributed the chapter "The Northern States and their relation to the European Situation" to Forbath, Alex, ed. (1938). Europe Into the Abyss: Behinds the scenes of Secret Politics. London: Pallas Publishing Co Ltd.. I would be interested to know more about A F Olden, and the Norwegian Peace Society. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

On a Google phrase search for "Norwegian Peace Society", the first hit is this page indicating it is another name for the Norwegian Peace Association. Their web site has no mention of Olden, though, and a search for his name together with their name in Norwegian finds nothing useful. One of the Norwegian-language Wikipedias has an article about the association, but it does not mention Olden either. --174.88.168.23 (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Here one Ole Fredrik Olden is mentioned as affiliated with the Norges Fredslag (Norwegian Peace Association) and chairman of the Norges Fredsråd (Norwegian Peace Council). The Norwegian Wikipedia has a stubby article on Ole Fredrik Olden, which links to a slightly more detailed online biography (in Norwegian).  --Lambiam 07:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

@Lambiam: Thanks, that must be him. DuncanHill (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

September 19

Senator voting on own confirmation to Scotus

RBG has passed and Sen. Ted Cruz has been mentioned as a possible replacement (or potentially some other Senator no matter who wins the upcoming POTUS election). Question: if a sitting Senator gets nominated for SCOTUS, do they get to vote on their own confirmation? This came up on Reddit and I have to wonder if such situations have happened before. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 06:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure a sitting senator who accepts a nomination has no constitutional impediment to voting on his own confirmation. See here for an article about Jeff Sessions confirmation to the Attorney General when he was a sitting senator: Senate democrats demanded he recuse himself from those votes, implying that there was no other impediment to him voting. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 07:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, the Sessions example is good. The article mentions Sessions recused from voting on his own nomination because of possible issues with Senate rules rather than because of Constitutional obstacles. It's not clear from the article whether he voted on Tillerson's (or other) nominations, but that's a side issue. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Punic Exonyms

What did the Carthaginians and Phoenicians call Rome, Egypt, the Greeks and the lands of western Africa where they explored on the Atlantic? KAVEBEAR (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

This seems more of a language question. No luck on Wiktionary; none of the Phoenician or Punic proper nouns listed there is a toponym for any of these.  --Lambiam 14:05, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

It seems very likely that the Phoenician word for "Egypt" would have been similar to the Hebrew word for "Egypt"... AnonMoos (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

"Phoenician is a Canaanite language closely related to Hebrew. Very little is known about the Canaanite language, except what can be gathered from the El-Amarna letters written by Canaanite kings to Pharaohs Amenhopis III (1402 - 1364 BCE) and Akhenaton (1364 - 1347 BCE)". The Phoenician Alphabet & Language

According to The El-Amarna Correspondence: Volume I (pp. 58-59), Mi-is-ri-i in Canaanite-Akkadian (the forebear of Phoenician) translates as "Egypt". For those of you who can't read the Hebrew link given by User:AnonMoos above, Mizraim is the Hebrew word for Egypt in Roman letters, that article also gives Miṣr as the Classical Arabic name. Alansplodge (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Who would be responsible to remove an unwilling Trump? (2)

(For the first installment in this series, see Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 September 11#Who would be responsible to remove an unwilling Trump?)

In a recent interview with The New Statesman, Chomsky has said that the duty to perform this task is incumbent upon the military, and thet, specifically, the 82nd Airborne Division will have to remove the president by force if he refuses to leave office and resists using paramilitary force. What is this based upon – provisions in the US Constitution, law, or what else?  --Lambiam 13:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The Constitution says the president's term expires on January 20. If he won't leave, then he's nothing more than a trespasser and could be removed by anyone authorized to remove trespassers at the White House. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:24, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

The key phrase in your fact pattern is “resists using paramilitary force”. That’s a coup, or a putsch, or something similar. As a matter of practical reality of course it falls to the military. It’s no different than any other insurrection. Chomsky is stating the obvious. Otherwise, as I said last thread (and as Bugs has reiterated) a Trump-occupied White House after his term has ended is no different than any other trespassing situation. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

But why, specifically, the 82nd Airborne Division? Also, whose responsibility is it to determine that the situation at hand constitutes a coup or putsch, and is there something in the Constitution or a legal provision that authorizes the military to intervene?  --Lambiam 20:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

That I really am not sure of. I suspect Chomsky is just pulling that division out because he heard it mentioned in connection with one of these wargames. It’s possible that there are practical or political reasons why an anti-coup targeting DC would involve that very specific division. It may also simply be the closest military force of its size to DC. But I am aware of no actual constitutional or legal reason why the 82nd Airborne specifically would put down an insurrection. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh and answering the second part of your question, I would argue that the responsibility falls to the President, who under this fact pattern would presumably be Joe Biden. The fact that he’d have been inaugurated would make him President. If there were legitimacy questions about the election after that the solution would be impeachment and not insurrection (and to be clear, even if the election were in fact stolen, it’s my understanding that an inaugurated Biden would still be President). 199.66.69.67 (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Why the 82nd? Battle of Bastogne and Synecdoche, or one of those rhetorical things, using an exemplar as a stand in. The language desk would probably know. fiveby(zero) 21:18, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Looking at the full quote: There’s a transition integrity project...they’ve been running war games...every one of them leads to civil war, every scenario that they can think of except a Trump victory leads to civil war. If he's referring to Transition Integrity Project and if the war games section is correct, then this is based on Chomsky lying and the failure of people these days to to critically evaluate what they read and merely accept statements which match their political leanings. But given a civil war or insurrection, I'd assume the duty he is referring to is stated in the United States Armed Forces oath of enlistment and the United States Uniformed Services Oath of Office: "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;" fiveby(zero) 15:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

One of the members of the group, Rosa Brooks, told The Boston Globe, "All of our scenarios ended in both street-level violence and political impasse. The law is essentially ... it’s almost helpless against a president who’s willing to ignore it."^[1] This in response to the question, "What if President Trump refuses to concede a loss, [and] Democrats refuse to give in?" It sounds like Chomsky did not just make this up, although the street violence may not rise to the level of "civil war".  --Lambiam 20:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Here's the report with scenarios in appendix. fiveby(zero) 21:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

If all else fails, Biden could shut off power and heat to the White House and set up shop somewhere else until the coast is clear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Like Pope Clement V in Avignon.  --Lambiam 17:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Air Force One would be ideal :-} Alansplodge (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

It is missing a bowling alley.  --Lambiam 13:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hit him in the wallet. Start billing him rent for the White House and salaries for the staff. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:49, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I wrote a long response to the initial question but ended up not posting most of it, still I'll post this now. As a final comment, I think the early days of the COVID-19 outbreak may have been possibly the longest stretch Trump was in the White House uninterrupted for just over a month [2] [3]. Point being, do we have any reason to think Trump would have a real desire to squat at the White House for months on end? And of course there's also the possible loss of food, power, staff (including the chef) and maybe even water to cope with. Nil Einne (talk) 08:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Arthur Davis Memorial Lectures

I have a copy of Guedalla, Philip (1925). Napoleon and Palestine. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., with a foreword by Israel Zangwill and an afterword by David Lloyd George. According to the title page it is the Eighth "Arthur Davis Memorial Lecture" delivered before the Jewish Historical Society. I would be interested to know more about these lectures, including if possible a complete list. Arthur Davis was the father of Nina Salaman, the poet and activist. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

1. Zangwill, Israel (1918). Chosen peoples : the Hebraic ideal versus the Teutonic.
2. Herford, R. Travers (1919). What the world owes to the Pharisees.
3. Abrahams, Israel (1920). Poetry and Religion.
4. Alexander, Samuel (1921). Spinoza and Time.
5. Petrie, William Matthew Flinders (1922). The status of the Jews in Egypt.
6. 1923
7. 1924
8. Radin, Paul (1925). Monotheism among Primitive Peoples.

Hmm, found one for 1950 so looking one at a time might not be practical. At least the early lectures were held in the Botanical Theatre of University College, and a listing of chairmen and council in "Preface". Transactions (Jewish Historical Society of England). 9: ix. JSTOR 29777693.. Report of the founding committee in "Appendice: Arthur Davis Memorial Lecture". Transactions (Jewish Historical Society of England). 197: ix. JSTOR 29777688. worldcat lists 35 in the series. fiveby(zero) 23:52, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Fiveby: - many thanks. I think Radin was 7 (Guedalla was 8), and number 6 was Salaman, Nina. Rahel Morpurgo.. DuncanHill (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Lloyd George a chairman in 1947[4], a fifteen year hiatus resumed by Leo Baeck "Changes in Jewish Outlook" in 1946.[5]

September 21

Protestant branch of the House of Hohenzollern senior-most legitimate male agnate question

This is sort of a random question, but here goes: Is Philip Kirill Prinz von Preußen the senior-most legitimate male agnate of the Protestant branch of the House of Hohenzollern similar to how Louis Alphonse de Bourbon (aka Louis XX) is the senior-most living legitimate male Capetian?

For what it's worth, this question could have been relevant in the sense that Philip Kirill could have been the current claimant to the defunct (Imperial) German throne had his father not renounced his succession rights to this defunct throne when he married back in 1967, a year before Philip Kirill's birth. Futurist110 (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

He's the eldest son of the eldest son of the eldest son of Wilhelm II, the last German emperor. I don't see why he wouldn't be? --Jayron32 14:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I was simply wondering if there was some sort of legitimate morganatic male-line Protestant Hohenzollern branch that was even more senior than Kaiser Wilhelm II's branch was. I mean, the current head of the House of Hapsburg (Karl von Hapsburg, the son of Otto von Hapsburg) actually isn't the senior-most legitimate male-line Hapsburg; rather, that honor belongs to the Dukes of Hohenberg, Franz Ferdinand's morganatic male-line descendants. BTW, minor nitpick, but Philip Kirill is actually the grandson of Louis Ferdinand, Prince of Prussia, who was Crown Prince Wilhelm's second son. Prince Wilhelm of Prussia (1906–1940) was Crown Prince Wilhelm's first son but he only had two daughters and no sons. Futurist110 (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I think because Philip Kirill’s father Friedrich Wilhelm married a commoner, which is why he (Friedrich Wilhelm) renounced his succession rights before marriage. So the answer lies in imponderable speculation about whether, if the German Imperial monarchy had not been discontinued, it would have modernized its requirements for eligibility to inherit the throne, in which case perhaps Friedrich Wilhelm would not have renounced and Philip Kirill would be eligible even as the son of a non-royal mother. But we can’t answer that kind of crystal ball stuff here. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 22:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Yep, that makes sense. Of course, had the German monarchy survived and modernized, it might have also eventually changed its succession laws in other ways--for instance, by allowing women and female-line royals to inherit the German throne. Of course, in this specific case, it shouldn't matter because there would have been no women (such as older sisters, or aunts who would have been older than his father) blocking Philip Kirill's accession to the German throne had this throne indeed survived up to the present-day. Futurist110 (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

The Ginsbergs

Was Ruth Bader Ginsberg related to Alan Ginsberg? Thanks-- Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.232.90 (talk o contribs) 09:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

1. She only had the surname Ginsburg because she married Martin D. Ginsburg. 2. The spellings are different. 3. Our articles do not mention a relationship between Martin D. Ginsburg and Allen Ginsberg. So the answer is no. 4. Please sign your posts by typing four tildes, like this: ~~~~ --Viennese Waltz 09:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Ginsberg is quite a common name. See Ginsberg.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:45, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, the answer is obviously "yes". They are also both related to a banana, just even more distantly. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia article Most recent common ancestor... -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

How many generations would the MRCA of the set {Joan Ruth Bader, Irwin Allen Ginsberg} plausibly go back?  --Lambiam 13:37, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, there are estimates that the MRCA of all humans may have been as recent as 300 BCE, which would be a bit over 90 generations (of 25 years). So I suspect the MRCA of two jewish people both born in the greater NY area, with one parent of either coming from Russia, is probably fairly recent. I would not be surprised if it were less than 20 generations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

OAN

I'm concerned about the depiction of the OAN network. It looks as though it was written by Ocasio-Cortez. It suggests extremes that I simply haven't detected. Who did this research? Thanks for addressing my concerns. No debate required, I'm just asking that you review your content for unbiased accuracy. I like what you do. I contribute to what you do. Thanks in advance 2600:1700:96E0:3E80:68CA:B7F:E041:C282 (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

This is not the right place for such an idea. You might try Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. But Wikipedia is a world-wide project, and in the context of an international audience, Ocasio-Cortez is probably pretty centrist - a bit to the left on some issues, a bit on the right on others. I've looked at One America News Network, and the description seems to be fair. We call a spade a spade, and a turd a turd. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia shouldn't have any obvious political bias, but we're not neutral between the theory that the earth is flat and the theory that it's quasi-spherical. If OAN has had many run-ins with credible fact-checkers, then we can report on that without necessarily being biased at all... AnonMoos (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

September 22

Modern day nations part of Ottoman Empire

Is there a website that shows the map of Ottoman Empire and the modern-day nations that were part of it? So far, I know that Jordan, Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Turkey were part of the Ottoman Empire. Donmust90 (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

What about this map?: https://geopoliticalfutures.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/mena-ottoman-europe-colonies-1280.jpg Would that work for this? Futurist110 (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

That map does not show the Empire at its greatest extent. For that, see File:OttomanEmpireMain.png.The Ottomans also claimed suzerainty over the Arabian Peninsula, but their control was weak and unsteady (see Ottoman Arabia).  --Lambiam 12:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Central Powers monarchy abolition question

When was the idea of abolishing the Central Powers monarchies first become flirted with in the Entente countries during WWI? I mean either in politicians' statements/proposals or in statements/proposals by academics, commentators, journalists, and/or et cetera. Futurist110 (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it ever was an official goal of the Entente Powers per se. The abolition of those monarchies occured not as a condition of peace at the end of WWI, but through internal revolutions. See German Revolution of 1918–1919, Dissolution of Austria-Hungary and Republic of German-Austria, Abolition of the Caliphate. Of these, the only one with significant foreign intervention was Turkey. On the Entente side, you also had Russia, and the end of the Monarchist parties in France (prior to WWI, the Third Republic still had significant monarchist elements, that went away by 1920). It turns out the late 1910s was just a good time to end all of this monarchy nonsense. --Jayron32 11:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Didn't Woodrow Wilson call on Germans to get rid of their Kaiser if they wanted peace, though? This was a couple of weeks before the World War I Armistice, I believe. Futurist110 (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

There is an uncited sentence at Abdication of Wilhelm II that hedges the notion that maybe Wilson may have suggested it in a note, but I don't see any reference or other information about that. Even if true, the revolutionaries during the German Revolution of 1918–1919 (which also, in a poorly referenced section, mentions such a "note"), which was happening at the same time, were unlikely to have either known about Wilson's putative proposal nor to care much about it. Abdication of the monarch is not abolition of the Monarchy, and absent the revolution there is an equally as likely a chance that another German noble or even member of the Hohenzollern family may have been selected as the next Kaiser. Even if we take the statement about Wilson encouraging abdication at face value, it doesn't say he advocated abolition of the Monarchy. --Jayron32 18:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Wilson's reply dated 14 October 1918 to Chancellor Maximilian's peace note of 7 October 1918 (number 6 of 8 points):

"SIXTH: That the cardinal condition of peace is the destruction of the arbitrary power which can separately, secretly and of its single choice, disturb the peace of the world, or, if not destroyed, be rendered innocuous. The present German dynasty is such power and it is within the choice of the German people to rid themselves of this power, or, at least, to make it harmless. The Hohenzollerns must go" [my emphasis]. From The Peace Notes: The Armistice: The Surrender.

176.227.136.190 (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for finding that. The articles in question would benefit from such addition. I will note that the distinction between "Find a new Emperor" and "Get rid of the Monarchy" is apt here, and I don't see that Wilson makes any statement that could be interpreted as the latter. --Jayron32 11:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Although replacing one "arbitrary power" with another would not have satisfied Wilson. The German establishment thought that moving to a constitutional monarchy might do, but Wilhelm signalled his rejection of that plan by moving the court military HQ from Berlin to Spa. See News from Germany: The Competition to Control World Communications, 1900–1945 (p. 73). 176.227.136.190 (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Role of a split Supreme Court in a contested Presidential election

The Financial Times recently ran an article "What happens if Trump loses but refuses to concede?" It ran a worst case scenario which was that Trump would sue in swing states - Pennsylvania was the example used - where he has an advantage on election night but not after mail-in ballots are begun to be counted. Likewise, if when counting the electoral college votes there are both republican and democrat electors sent to congress for contested states and congress is gridlocked on how to apportion them, but Mike Pence, as VP - and thus overseeing the counting of the electoral college votes - declares republican ones to be legitimate, this would spark claims by democrats of a coup and provoke a legal challenge.

Either of these outcomes appear to becoming at least likely and generate legal scenarios that may require the intervention of the Supreme Court. The problem being that, following the death of Justice Ginsberg, the Supreme Court only has eight members, with no guarantee that it will have 9 by January. So my question is if it is asked to intervene in a disputed election and it is deadlocked in its decision making (4-4 each way), what happens then? There doesn't seem to be any constitutional provision to remedy this unless I'm missing something. --Andrew 09:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

What happens then is "We make it up as we go along". Same as always. Precedent only matters if the winning side has it. Otherwise, it's all just ad hoc. We've had two previous contested elections that hinged on contested results in close states. The 2000 United States presidential election was decided by the Supreme Court, which voted to stop the recount in Florida and to certify the existing results, and the 1876 United States presidential election where an "independent" (scare quotes intentional) Electoral Commission decided in favor of Hayes. --Jayron32 11:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Ultimately, if the Electoral College has not determined a winner by Dec. 14 (ie the first Monday after the Second Wednesday) then the courts no longer matter... the Constitution says that the election goes to Congress. The President is chosen by the House of Representatives and the Vice President is chosen by the Senate. Blueboar (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

By the way... if the election does go to the House, Trump is favored to win. This is because the Representatives don’t vote individually, but by State delegations... with each State then getting one vote for President. Republicans control more State delegations. Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK, we won't know for sure who control more state delegations until about the same time as the presidential election as this is when the entire House is also up for election. While Republicans may control more State delegations now, it will be the new Congress voting. See our article linked by Jayron or this [6] Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This paper by the Congressional Research Service, who looked into the matter in 2016, states "A contingent election would be conducted by a newly elected Congress, immediately following the joint congressional session that counts and certifies electoral votes. This session is set by law for January 6 of the year following the presidential election, but is occasionally rescheduled." It will be the newly elected House. Based on my count, there are 22 Democratic Majority delegations currently, 27 Republican Majority delegations, and one split Delegation (Michigan). Realistically, the Democrats need to flip four of those during the election to make a House presidential election go their way, and they could do so in Michigan (even split), Florida (odd number of members, 1 member disadvantage), Wisconsin (needs to flip 2 seats) and Pennsylvania (needs to flip two seats). There's an outside chance to flip North Carolina as they are working from new court-mandated election district maps. Mathematically at-large states with one member would be the easiest to flip, among these MAYBE Montana, as they have a Democratic Senator and Governor right now. --Jayron32 16:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not always very clear what that means. In the case of "the Electoral College votes are all in, unchallenged and accepted, and we still don't have a clear winner", then the vote goes to the House of Representatives under the established constitutional procedure under the Contingent election procedure. This can ONLY happen where there are at least 3 candidates splitting the Electoral College vote. However, that is not what is being proposed here. What is being proposed here is "the Electoral College votes are not all in and certified because the election in at least on state is uncertain due to legal challenges surrounding the official vote totals". THAT has happened twice before, and on one of the two times (1876, see above for link) the actual result was not certified until only a few days before the scheduled start of the term. The vote was not thrown to the house because there were only two possible results: the disputed votes would either be thrown to Hayes or to Tilden, and both of those outcomes would have resulted in a clear majority. Thus, if the same thing were to happen again (and as I implied earlier, past results are no guarantee of future performance), we could blow past December 14 with no clear winner, and as long as results are in dispute, it will not go to a House vote. --Jayron32 14:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't actually require a three-way split to have the election go to the House with all electoral votes counted and undisputed. It could also happen in a two-way tie. This has never happened, but it's a non-negligible possibility. --Trovatore (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

There are an odd number of electors. That's not how odd numbers work. I'd like to see you get an even split among an odd number of electors, where ALL of the votes only go to one of two people. Which elector are you sawing in half? --Jayron32 16:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I think there are 538 — 435 representatives, 100 senators, plus 3 votes for DC. --Trovatore (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Of course, you are correct. I am an idiot, and should be ignored in most cases and ridiculed in the rest. Carry on. --Jayron32 17:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Cases reach the Supreme Court as petitions to overturn a decision of a lower court. If there is a deadlock, the decision of the lower court stands, as happened e.g. after the death of Scalia; see Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination#Effect of vacancy on rulings.  --Lambiam 13:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Precisely. Election contests don’t originate in the Supreme Court as far as I know (this is a distinction between the federal government and many state governments that provide election cases can originate in the state Supreme Court). And even then, when you consider how election contests work, the complaint isn’t “this election is fraudulent,” but “votes in this precinct were miscounted,” or “ballots were destroyed in this district.” And if there’s widespread fraud? You need to bring individual suits alleging specific facts. Thus, when a case or collection of cases hit the federal Supreme Court, affirmation by an equally divided court is a possibility. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

And on the off chance someone's interested in what happens with an equally divided court in original jurisdiction cases, there may not be a rule. See Michael Coenen, Comment, "Original Jurisdiction Deadlocks", 118 Yale L.J. 1003 (2009). My own instinct is that an original jurisdiction deadlock ought to result in a ruling favoring the nonmoving party, but OJ cases are so uncommon and so specialized, I wouldn't be surprised if there are good arguments against that. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The Constitution says the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction "in all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party". I would take the President to be a "public Minister" here; is that not so? --174.89.48.182 (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Not in the sense that it renders a case where the President is sued within the Court’s exclusive original jurisdiction. As far as I know the current understanding of the Court’s original jurisdiction is that there are few if any cases that would be exclusively subject to that original jurisdiction. As a matter of practice, the President is routinely sued in his official capacity in the federal district courts. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

In such a scenario, the decision of the lower court will remain legally binding and valid, no? So, for instance, had the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) been deadlocked 4-4 in Bush v. Gore, then the decision of the Florida Supreme Court ordering a new recount would have been upheld, but without creating any new legally binding SCOTUS precedents since there would have been no majority SCOTUS opinion (which I believe is required in order to create a new legally binding SCOTUS precedent, no?). Futurist110 (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Yep. The phrase is “affirmed by an equally divided court”, and it means that the outcome from the lower court is undisturbed, and the opinion of the Court is not binding precedent (but do not mistake it as useless or non-citeable as many nonprecedential appeals court opinions may be, there are some very important 4-4 decisions, such as, off the top of my head, Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, though the principle articulated therein is accepted as having died with Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court). 199.66.69.67 (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

That's what I thought; thanks! Futurist110 (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The significance of "the first Monday after the second Wednesday" [in December] appears to be that it allows a constant 41 days from election day (which is the Tuesday after the first Monday in November). 2A00:23A8:4306:5D01:8097:1643:48EF:56C9 (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Impressionists

Where on Avenue de Clichy in Paris was The Café that Manet and Degas among others assembled? Is there a known door number? Does a café still exist there? Is this a good/nice part of Paris? Thanks 86.186.232.90 (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

We have an article on Café Guerbois, is that the one you mean? The French Wikipedia article gives its street address as "9-11, grande rue des Batignolles (actuellement 9, avenue de Clichy)". Google Street View has photos of the place, if that's the correct address, but apparently no café currently at the same number. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

According to this site, there is now a group of small shops at the spot of the former Café Guerbois. Google Maps street view shows nothing particularly interesting there. How good or nice the area is depends on what you are interested in. It is certainly not a rundown area, but the points of interest to tourists are relatively sparse. The Montmartre Cemetery is quite close; Degas is buried there, as are Édouard André and Émile Zola, both also habitués of the Café Guerbois. This is a few kilometres north of the northern bank of the Seine where among other things the Louvre and the Centre Pompidou are located. Some people prefer the atmosphere of the Rive Gauche, the area south of the southern Seine bank. If you have no issue walking, many interesting thinks are within a one-hour walking distance, but it is not the best centrally located spot. However, unless you're in the suburbs, you can easily get around by metro.  --Lambiam 12:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article in it:wp refers to Il Café Guerbois sito al numero 11 del viale di Batignolles, oggi Avenue de Clichy.

With the disclaimer that I don't speak Italian, I translate that as

"The Café Guerbois sited at number 11 of the Avenue of Batignolles, now Avenue de Clichy."

From that I deduce that there has been a street-name change, and that the French word actuellement, in addition to any other meanings it may have, means "now". 92.19.65.159 (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I think a more nuanced translation would be "currently", but essentially yes. Oggi, by the way, means "today". --Trovatore (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Early on in my Ph.D., one of my fellow students was prepping for the French exam, which consisted in translating a math paper, and he was practicing by translating other papers. He had never studied French, and he kept getting stuck on the word maintenant. What exactly was the argument "maintaining"? My French has never been great, but I had taken it in high school, so I recognized maintenant as just meaning "now", more of a verbal tic than anything central to the proof in question. But of course etymologically it does exactly mean "maintaining", which I had never noticed before. --Trovatore (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

And here's confirmation from fr:Avenue de Clichy:

Indiquée sur le plan de Deharme de 1763, elle s'appelait précédemment :

• « chemin de Clichy » ;
• « grande rue des Batignolles » (RD No. 13) entre la place de Clichy et l'avenue de Saint-Ouen ;
• « avenue de Clichy » entre l'avenue de Saint-Ouen et le boulevard Berthier (RD No. 14).

"Followers of nouvelle peinture often met at the Café Guerbois ( 11 , Grande - rue de Batignolles , today Avenue de Clichy )" [7] 176.227.136.190 (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Sad really, were I to go to Paris, and I am sure I will at some point, this Café would have been my number one destination for a drink (absinth?) and a meal and perhaps a fiery debate. This could be a great tourist attraction and a great restaurant business if opened and run with some rustic and pseudo-authentic atmosphere. Thanks Team 86.186.232.90 (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Others are also gone, such as La Nouvelle Athènes. If you don't feel that art ended with impressionism, you can still visit La Palette and La Rotonde. For a philosophical debate after n glasses of absinthe, go to Café de Flore or Les Deux Magots (or both).  --Lambiam 18:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

A tie vote in the Israeli Cabinet

What happens if there is a tie vote in the Israeli Cabinet in regards to some issue or question? Futurist110 (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

September 23

Lodz Ghetto liquidation question

Does anyone here know just how much of a factor the Red Army's advance into Poland in the summer of 1944 was in the liquidation of the Lod Ghetto in August 1944? Futurist110 (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

According to The Chronicle of the Lodz Ghetto, 1941-1944 (into, p. lxi), the idea was first mooted in the summer of 1943 by Max Horn due to the inefficiency of the ghetto compared to the concentration camps. The approach of the Soviets seems to have delayed it. 176.227.136.190 (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Polish history question

Are the figures Wincenty Kononowicz (1722-1801; szlachcic, contributor to the Polish Constitution of 1791 and leader of the Szlachta Revolt of 1788) and Tadeusz Cyrankiewicz (1904-1944; armed combatant in the Polish Home Army, insurrectionist and poet) notable historical figures? I only ask because neither has an article on the English or Polish Wikipedias yet do have one on the Scots Wikipedia, written by a user who doesn't seem to understand the Scots language very well yet is uploading there rather than on the Polish or English sites, which seems odd to me.

As I don't speak Polish or have much knowledge of Polish history I can't say whether the sources are reliable or say what they claim, but I do find it odd that none of them appear to be available online. --Bangalamania (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

They seem notable enough to me. Futurist110 (talk) 03:40, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Futurist110: From their descriptions they certainly would appear notable, but I am very much struggling to find any references to them existing at all, in Polish or English.

The references given in the article can't be accessed online–which isn't bad in an of itself, but I'd expect to see at least a line or two on some Polish history site at the very least if these people existed. Again, I'm no expert and I don't speak Polish, so I could be missing something, but this seems fishy to me. Why wouldn't this user go to the Polish Wikipedia to make these articles if they speak Polish? Or English WP?

They're not a native Scots speaker (full disclosure: neither am I) and are using a strange orthography in their writing. It's much easier to manipulate and pull hoaxes on Wikipedias with fewer active editors, especially one which has been in the news recently like the Scots WP.

P.S. I just realised that the photo used in Cyrankiewicz's article is of someone else). I'm suspecting this is a hoax. –Bangalamania (talk) 05:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. Another Wikipedia hoax! :( Futurist110 (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Before I read the above, I came to the same conclusion and returned here to post it. The references don't seem to work out.  --Lambiam 12:36, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

The two articles were created by the same editor, who did no content work on any other article. They also had a BS response on their talk page to being challenged regarding their Scots ability. The validity of the articles is also questioned there. I can upgrade the hoaxiness level from "suspected" to "definite".  --Lambiam 12:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Five tillahs of gold - bidding for a slave

In Keay, John (2017). "At Large in Central Asia 1819-26". The Tartan Turban: In Search of Alexander Gardner. London: Kashi House. p. 33. ISBN 9781911271000. we read that while Alexander Gardener is on the way to Merv, a gang of Turki-speaking travellers attempted to buy him from his Therbah companions as a slave. "At six-foot tall and of athletic build, Gardner was evidently rated a prize specimen, fit to grace the bodyguard of any tyrant. The bidding rose to 5 tillahs of gold". How much was a tillah? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

As a start, Gardner gives a value later in his memoir: “In the regular slave-markets, or in transactions between dealers, it is the custom to pay for slaves in money ; the usual medium being either Bokharan gold tillahs (in value about 5 or 5J Company rupees each), or in gold bars or gold grain.” Wikipedia has Exchange rate history of the Indian rupee (why?) but it does not go back to the 19th century, so further research is required to now determine the value of a company rupee c. 1820 :) 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Must run, but this source says when new British coins were minted in 1835 the company rupee was 180 troy grains of which 165 grains were pure silver. No time now to delve into value of silver at that time. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Per [8], it took about 15 oz silver to buy 1 oz gold in the period of Gardner’s trip. So the value of the 5 company rupees (165 troy grains x 5 = 1.88 oz) would be a bit less than 2 oz gold (please check math). Per [9], gold was worth L3.17s. 10d per troy ounce in Britain from 1717 to 1914. So if the slavers had brought their 5 tillahs to England they could have bought (please check math again) L7.15s.8d worth of goods… and finally, per [10], this was how much money a male labourer in Europe (for some reason, Sweden specifically?) could earn with 1,725 hours of work in 1820. So around half a years wages…?? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

(ec) I found this from the Proceedings of the Royal Geographical Society of London, 1872-3. Under the heading 'Exchange of Yarkand Currency with Indian' it says '1 tillah = 6 rupees = 1080 tangas (average)', which may or may not be helpful to you. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 15:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Straddling Science and Religion

In a recent issue of National Geographic there is an article entitled "They may look goofy, but ostriches are nobody’s fool" and this goes on to state, and I quote "In our ragbag of stereotypes, ostriches have thus become the quintessential dim-witted animals. Even the Bible says they’re dumb, and bad parents too." Where in the Bible is this discussed please. It also says that an Ostrich has eyes bigger than an elephant's. I have been with both in close proximity and they both have big eyes, (African and Asian elephants), is this claim true, are their eyes bigger?Thank you. 86.186.232.90 (talk) 15:46, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Job 39:13-18. --Jayron32 17:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

One source I found states that the diameter of an ostrich eye is about 5 centimetres (2.0 in). Another article says the diameter of an elephant eye is about 3.8 centimetres (1.5 in). While those aren't great sources (I wouldn't use them in articles) it's suggestive that the claim is true. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

References

See also [11] for a concordance of passages mentioning ostriches. There are various discussions on the Job 39 passage alluded to in National Geographic and already identified by Jayron.. --Amble (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

How do we know the Hebrew word traditionally translated as "ostrich" had that meaning in the Hebrew of the 6th century BCE?  --Lambiam 19:26, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

This is an excellent question. I believe the word used in the Hebrew version is “renanim”, but I know nothing of Hebrew etymology. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Because it describes a flightless bird that can outrun a horse? --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

• "The corn is as high as an ostrich's eye" was considered by Hammerstein and then discarded, because ostriches' eyes often end up underground, while elephants' don't. You heard it here first, folks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Technically, Curly McLain said "The corn is as high as a elephant's eye." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Well of Consort Zhen

How does any human except the most petite person be thrown into the well of Consort Zhen at the Forbidden City? Is this a common well design in Qing Dynasty China? How would one draw water from it? It seem to only to fit a standard size bucket.