Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:12, 16 December 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.

December 8

Early 1990s Ukrainian polling on the Soviet Union's collapse and break-up?

Does anyone here know of any early 1990s (specifically 1991-1994) Ukrainian polling in regards to Ukrainians' views on the Soviet Union's collapse and break-up? Specifically, I want to know if the number of Ukrainians who regretted the Soviet Union's collapse and break-up in 1991-1994 was significantly higher than the 10% of Ukrainians who voted against Ukrainian independence in the December 1991 Ukrainian independence referendum. Futurist110 (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Professor Stephen F. Cohen has argued in one of his works that when Ukrainians voted for independence in December 1991, a lot of them didn't actually know that they were going to vote for full independence; rather, Cohen claims that a lot of Ukrainians thought that a new union (along the lines of the Soviet Union, but much freer and fairer) was going to soon follow even after a successful Ukrainian independence vote: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Soviet_Fates_and_Lost_Alternatives/uoJFyqxx9KUC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=%22really%20vote%20to%20leave%20the%22 Basically, I want to test the veracity of Professor Cohen's hypothesis in regards to this issue. Specifically, I want to try figuring out whether Professor Cohen's hypothesis in regards to this is likely to be true or likely to be false. Futurist110 (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But there is a union that Ukraine joined after they voted for independence. It still exists, but Ukraine (mostly, but not entirely) quit in 2018 following the whole Crimea/Donbass mess. See Commonwealth of Independent States. --Jayron 32 12:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That union is mostly symbolic, though--no? Comparable to the British Commonwealth. (Yes, Russia did try to turn it into something bigger than that, but Ukraine and perhaps some other countries have always blocked and vetoed these Russian proposals.) Futurist110 (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're showing your age, it hasn't been the British Commonwealth since 1949, but the name lingered on in the Commonwealth Games until 1974. Alansplodge (talk) 09:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I'm only 28 years old! Futurist110 (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOL :-) Alansplodge (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UN peacekeeping in the 90s and now

I'm under impression that the UN peacekeeping forces now are less prominent globally than, for example, in the 1990s when I heard frequent news reports about blue helmets. It seems now Russian peacekeepers are more visible in hot areas than blue helmets. Is it indeed so? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Russian forces are present in Crimea, eastern Ukraine, Syria, and now increasingly in Libya, but I don't know that what they do can be described as "peacekeeping" -- see Wagner Group. United Nations peacekeepers have somewhat tarnished their reputation by spreading cholera in Haiti (something which the UN leadership kept shamelessly and brazenly lying about for many months) and several sex scandals (not forgetting Srebrenica, of course). Israel has insisted on keeping such UN forces to the absolute minimum role that Israel can obtain, ever since the May 1967 U Thant fiasco, when the United Nations basically gave up on any serious attempt to prevent the then-future Six-day War of June 1967... AnonMoos (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

opinionated comments Viennese Waltz 17:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Erm that's a pretty biased view. You could equally easily say Israel probably doesn't want to be held accountable for their breaking of countless UN resolutions.... Fgf10 (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. Whatever gets passed in the United Nations' ritualistic Two-Minutes Hate Against Israel sessions ever since the Soviet-Third World alliance of dictators against democracies was consolidated at the United Nations in the 1970s has no relevance to the events of May 1967, when then-Secretary General U Thant failed to make use of peackeepers in any way which would keep the peace, and in fact ended up pretty much paving the path to war. It was one of the actions which solidified Israeli contempt for the UN (even before the infamous Resolution 3379). Whether he wanted to or not, U Thant taught the Israeli government and people in the "school of hard knocks" that the United Nations will never act to defend Israel in any way, but it will often act to try to prevent Israel from defending itself, and the Israelis have kept that in mind ever since... AnonMoos (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EH? Is AnonMoos suggesting that the Russian forces in Crimea are even remotely in ANYONE's perception'peacekeepers'????????? (I'm not even touching Russian forces in eastern Ukraine because Russia won't admit to them - hardly the way one normally seeks PR for peacekeeping.) Hayttom (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to gently squelch the idea without using emphatic language. AnonMoos (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional examples of ethnic federations

Which additional examples of ethnic federations--either real-life examples or proposed examples that were never actually implemented--are there? So far, I can think of:

The Soviet Union
Communist Czechoslovakia
Communist Yugoslavia
Ethiopia
Bosnia and Herzegovina (sort-of)
Nepal (maybe?)
Pakistan
India
South Sudan
Belgium
Russia (sort-of; a lot of its federal units are ethnic Russian-majority, though it does have some that are specifically meant for minorities)
The pre-World War I United States of Greater Austria plan, but it was never actually implemented
Joe Biden's 2006-2007 proposal to partition Iraq into separate Sunni Arab, Shi'a, and Kurdish federal units, but it was likewise never actually implemented--yet, at least!

The European Union could be thought of as an ethnic confederation due to the widespread prevalence of nation-states within it, I suppose.

Anyway, though, which additional examples of ethnic federations (aka ethnic federalism)--either real or proposed/hypothetical--have there been? Futurist110 (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia and Herzegovina is definitely an ethnic federation, as various ethnic groups control their own sub-national institutions. Not sure why you put Ethiopia and Nepal on this list, however. India is just a basic federation; it just happens to have various ethnic groups among its huge population. Xuxl (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Bosnia and Herzegovina, do the Croats there have their own self-governing institutions? As for Ethiopia and Nepal, the ethnic federalization article on Wikipedia mentions them as being ethnic federations. As for India, aren't a lot of its states roughly based on ethnic lines? Telangana for the Telugu people, for instance. Futurist110 (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably say "ethnolinguistic", since the Indian state boundaries were largely redrawn along linguistic lines after independence.. AnonMoos (talk) 02:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

China and Burma come to mind. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

China isn't actually a federation, though. Neither is Burma, apparently. Futurist110 (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both have carve outs for ethnic minorities (and honor them in the same pathetic way). DOR (HK) (talk) 02:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC) ADD: "Union" of Myanmar...[reply]

December 9

Countries that got severely screwed over during the 20th century?

Which countries got severely screwed over during the 20th century, including by themselves and their own actions and decisions? So far, I can think of:

Russia: Helped start World War I in 1914 for Pan-Slavism only to see almost all Slavic countries a century later end up being in rival economic and/or military blocs. And this is not to mention that World War I significantly helped spark the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, which resulted in decades of Communist rule in Russia, decades of misery, and decades of lost demographic potential for Russia due to things such as the Soviet famines and World War II. And this is not to mention the mass secessions from Russia that Communism eventually made possible.
Germany: Sparked World War II in Europe due to a desire for more Lebensraum only to subsequently lose this war, lose over a quarter of its pre-war territory (including both Austria and the Sudetenland), see up to 20 million of its ethnic kinsmen get killed and/or expelled from their homes, see a couple million of their women get raped by Soviet soldiers, get forcibly partitioned for the next half a century, and get Communism shoved down the throats of a quarter of your countrymen for the next half a century.
Serbia: Endured extremely massive demographic losses in World War I for the Yugoslav idea, made it actually happen after the end of World War I, but ultimately ended up losing almost all of its World War I-era territorial gains after the collapse of Communism and the end of the Cold War. Serbia couldn't even manage to keep either Montenegro or Kosovo--though it did manage to keep Vojvodina.
Austria-Hungary: Sparked World War I to deal with the threat of Pan-Slavism to its empire, but its ultimate loss in World War I ironically only accelerated Austria-Hungary's demise and break-up instead.
Ottoman Empire: Entered World War I in order to reassert itself as a Great Power, but ultimately ended up losing the war and thus ironically helped pave the way for its own demise and break-up instead.
Cambodia: Ended up losing a quarter of its population due to the extremely brutal and tyrannical Khmer Rouge in the late 1970s.

Anyway, which additional examples of this have there been? Futurist110 (talk) 00:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure you're avoiding the question of which countries were the aggressors in WW1 and WW2, and committed conspicuous crimes. The Soviet Union took back after WW2 most of what Russia had lost in WW1... AnonMoos (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to World War II, I explicitly blamed Nazi Germany for this. In regards to WWI, I spread the blame around between Austria-Hungary, Russia, and Serbia. As for crimes, where exactly did I deny the existence of war crimes here? As for the Soviet Union, Yes, it regained a lot of territories as a result of World War II but World War II also caused it to suffer extremely massive demographic losses--27 million, and the impact would be even greater over multiple generations since those 27 million could have had kids, grandkids, et cetera of their own, et cetera. The Soviet Union lost 20% of its total men in World War II, and for some of its young male cohorts (such as for those Soviet men who were born in 1923) the figure might have literally been as high as 40%! Futurist110 (talk) 00:19, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

China, certainly from the very beginning of the century up through the 1970s, and arguably continuously throughout. The end of the Boxer Rebellion and the reparations that had to be paid to the treaty powers (though much of this was reinvested in development in China), bloody revolutions, Japanese occupation during the war and the atrocities they committed, population transfers as the nationalists retreated to Taiwan, the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, the effects of the Sino-Soviet split, isolationism, and a variety of other indignities suffered from without and within. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, excellent example! (Though I would personally refer to the Great Leap Forward as the Great Leap Backward instead! ;) ) Futurist110 (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that your list is all or mostly countries that screwed themselves over. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was hoping for a specific focus on self-screwing countries here. I guess that I should have made this clearer in my OP here in hindsight. Futurist110 (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnam had a pretty rough time at the hands of firstly the French, then the USA and a bunch of its friends. HiLo48 (talk) 10:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But their demographics don't actually appear to have suffered too badly as a result of this--and neither did their territorial integrity in the long(er)-run! Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got a source for that? HiLo48 (talk) 22:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britain: entered WWII as the world's largest empire, only to lose most of its colonies and dominions despite being on the winning side. Then later screwed itself over and lost much of its remaining power and influence in the Suez Crisis. Iapetus (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the empire was sustainable for much longer and it was obviously right to enter WW2 but I fear we are now screwing ourselves with Brexit and the current lack of negotiations.Spinney Hill (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the Empire was unsustainable, and ending it was a good thing (certainly for the colonies, and probably for Britain too in the long run). But it was presumably contrary to the desires and interests of the people running the Empire at the time, so from their perspective, losing the Empire despite winning the war would probably count as either "getting screwed over" or "screwing ourselves over", depending on how much they blamed events on external factors or their own decisions. Iapetus (talk) 12:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine and Kurdistan did not fare so well in the 20th century. Armenia was reduced to a rump state, lost a huge section of its population to a genocide and was under either non-benign Ottoman or Soviet domination for most of the period. Xuxl (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine and Kurdistan weren't independent countries during the 20th century, though. As for Armenia, the Armenian genocide occurred before Armenia actually became independent. Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine was a separate political entity early in the century, before being carved up. Kurdistan was granted status as a separate political entity in the Treaty of Sèvres, but that was rescinded only a couple of years later by the Treaty of Lausanne and things have been downhill ever since for the Kurds. It seems strange to exclude them from your list when they've had a worst bargain than just about anyone else on it. And even if you discount the genocide (and why should you?), Armenia did not have a very good century. Xuxl (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Futurist110 (talk) 07:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A little early but buffer state Paraguay's leader decided to force Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay to cry and give land by fighting them simultaneously (edit: still overly optimistic but it was more complicated than that) and if I remember right they lost about half their land and 90% of the males born in a large number of years completely wrecking their age vs. sex distribution and males slightly too young to fight and not too in love with one girl to stay loyal had an AMAZING consolation prize if they liked older women, they had up to like 2 digits of wives (4:1 women to men ratio, and some were old men) and the country was only allowed to continue existing cause Argentina and Brazil were rivals and the north bump of today's Paraguay has very low economic potential. The elongated 2-bump shape of today's Paraguay reduces their common border by interposition without leaving much good land in the buffer so the two biggest South American powers preferred that to complete annexation. And holy crap, their immediate territorial losses were massive, though only if much of the disputed mostly wilderness areas are considered theirs, i.e. their modern borders are much bigger, making it seem like they lost tons of undisputed land to the careless map reader when the reality is not that simple. i.e. Bolivia claimed the north bump.

Yep, I'm well-aware of the War of the Triple Alliance fucking Paraguay over. I specifically declined to include this example here because it was pre-20th century. Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Chaco War did not go so well for Paraguay either. Xuxl (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they certainly suffered a lot, but at least they actually won this war, no? Futurist110 (talk) 07:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finland had no real option but to side with Germany in 1941 but then ended up on the losing side. Alansplodge (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa seemed to be on a fairly positive path after it was established in 1910, at least until the Second World War, then came apartheid. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Equatorial Guinea. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the countries listed in Failed_state#Examples are worth considering. Also, I don't think that North Korea has been mentioned yet.--Wikimedes (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presbyterian celebration of Christmas in Scotland

Christmas was banned in Scotland in 1640. how is Christmas in Scotland celebrated today, is it a happy occasion ? can you remember how you used to celebrate Christmas, during your childhood, in Scotland ? did you attend Presbyterian or Church of Scotland services ? are there Christmas lights and decorations on the streets ? did you have a Christmas tree, or do you recall visiting Santa, or Christmas grotto's ? Gfigs (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evangelical feast has some theological background, and something on the social aspect at Christmas in Scotland. I don't live in Scotland but I have the impression that nowadays it's a rather watered-down version of Christmas in England. Alansplodge (talk) 08:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

interesting..thanks Gfigs (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is Santa as big as in America? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland (a small fundamentalist sect) doesn't even celebrate Christmas as a religious festival. From their FAQ page: Q. Do you have Christmas, Easter and other special services according to the church calendar? A. No. We do not recognise these festivals at all, on the grounds that God has never commanded His Church to keep them. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas in US is huge..Free Presbyterian Church of Scotland, oh really, I never knew this.. Gfigs (talk) 20:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

surprisingly, the Vatican Christmas Tree was only installed in 1982. I wonder if Jenners promoted Christmas, or any department store in Scotland has a Santa's Workshop ?Gfigs (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meet Father Christmas at Hamleys! (in Glasgow). That was last year; things are a bit different with Covid this time around. Alansplodge (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

rather interesting.. Gfigs (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cases of mass diaspora migration back to the homeland/motherland?

Which cases of mass diaspora migration back to the homeland/motherland have there been throughout history? So, far, I can think of:

Millions of Jews worldwide making aliyah to Israel or, before that, to the British Mandate of Palestine or Ottoman Palestine
Central and Eastern European Germans and Germans from the former Soviet Union (including Baltic Germans) moving en masse to Germany starting from 1939 and continuing up to the present-day, with various ebbs and surges in migration.
Huge numbers (possibly millions of) ethnic Russians moving to Russia from other ex-USSR countries after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991
Volhynian Czechs moving en masse to Czechoslovakia after the end of World War II
The Greco-Turkish population exchange in the early 1920s involving sending a lot of Greeks back to Greece and a lot of Turks back to Turkey, sometimes or even often forcibly and against their will
Crimean Tatars returning en masse to Crimea after 1989
The Oralman moving to Kazakhstan in huge numbers after 1991

Anyway, though, which additional examples of this have there been throughout history? Futurist110 (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, between the Slavic migrations of the early 7th-century (which resulted in Slavic-speaking peoples as far south as the Peloponnese) and the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, the center of gravity of the Greek-speaking world (i.e. the largest and most populous Greek-speaking area) was actually in Anatolia, not really what we think of today as "Greece"... AnonMoos (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, Greece was historically the origin of the Greek world, then stopped being the center of the Greek world for a time, and then once again started being the center of the Greek world due to the Islamization and the Turkification of Anatolia starting from the late 11th century? Futurist110 (talk) 01:55, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the Greek populations that went "back" to Greece after World War I did not originate there in anything but an extremely distant way. Xuxl (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, one might wonder whether the ancestors of Anatolian Greeks indeed came to Anatolia from Greece centuries or millenniums ago or whether they were simply Hellenized (indigenous) Anatolians. Futurist110 (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was a Back-to-Africa movement for freed slaves from the Americas in the 19th century that resulted in a non-trivial number of persons being relocated. There have also been various movements of refugee groups back to their original countries following conflicts; see Voluntary return. Xuxl (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting; thank you! I'll go take a look at it! Futurist110 (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a "slippery slope" problem when dealing with the concept of "homeland". What makes the modern borders of Germany the "German Homeland" any more than other areas? Germany as a distinct nation-state is younger than the United States, German-speaking peoples have historically, going back centuries, occupied lands that have never been part of any German state. Really, what defines a place as a homeland is that there is leadership that decides it needs the people who live under their governance that needs those people to get really worked up about supporting the leadership's agenda. Concepts like "defending the homeland" or "recapturing the lost homeland" is a convenient way to do that. While ethnic groups do need a safe place to exist and grow and survive without threat from other groups, and there can be a healthy pride in one's ethnic history, the line is fine where a healthy pride in one's own ethnic history becomes an unhealthy pride... --Jayron 32 16:44, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Germany is called the German homeland because all ethnic Germans originated from there sufficiently long ago, no? Even extremely old diaspora German communities such as the Transylvanian Saxons had their origins in the territories of present-day Germany, no? Of course, Austria and Switzerland–both being German-majority–should also be viewed as being a part of the German homeland. As for unhealthy ethnic pride, one country that has too much of it is Israel; you can trust me from personal experience in regards to this considering that I and my family have previously lived in Israel (as patrilineal Jews, other than my mom, who isn't actually Jewish at all) and considering that I have closely followed Israeli news and Israeli politics through the Internet (including Israeli news websites such as Haaretz, the Jerusalem Post, and the Times of Israel) for the last 13.5 years–ever since mid-2007! Futurist110 (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But they didn't. Proto-germanic people originated (depending on your definition of "proto" and "Germanic") in either Scandinavia or the northern Black Sea area. Most modern theories place the origin of the Germanic peoples as the Nordic Bronze Age culture of what is today Scandinavia, much of what is today Germany was dominated by the Hallstatt culture which is largely recognized as a proto-Celtic culture. Those people arrived from elsewhere and displaced prior settlements of Finno-Ugric peoples who were pushed to the north and became groups like the Sami people. Where did they come from? Likely from the Yamnaya culture. Even as late as the early AD period, there were large Germanic populations in the area of the Black Sea, like the Ostrogoths, though these were settlements from Scandinavian peoples moving back southeast again. They were a fairly migratory people, but didn't settle in what we now call Germany until fairly late in the game. There were Germanic peoples from Iberia to North Africa throughout the migratory periods during the Roman Empire period, and the spoke Germanic languages all over those areas. There's a myth that there's some land that a group of people has a right to because they have always lived on that land. Looking at the breadth of history, until fairly recently, all people groups were fairly migratory, and wandered widely and cultures have grown and dispersed and morphed and changed and merged and split in bewildering ways. Homeland just means "land the leadership finds it convenient to claim as their homeland based on it's own definitions". Again, a settled culture needs a place to call "home" and to feel safe from violence and from loss of cultural identity, but that's different than claiming some culture "has always existed" in some place, or has some "homeland". It's rather arbitrary and based on political expedience. --Jayron 32 19:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic people is not the same as German people. --Lambiam 23:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, but there is also not a clear dividing line from when "Germanic people" became "German people" unless you count from 1871 and the formation of the first German state. And neither did that state include all ethnic Germans. The point is, we speak as though these things are perfectly binary and immutable and from time immemorial "That's our land because we've always lived there". That's not how culture works. --Jayron 32 14:08, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, the ethnic group having German as a shared mother tongue, largely descendants of the German-speaking population of the Holy Roman Empire, is a much more restricted group than the Germanic peoples in general, speaking any Germanic language, which includes most Scandinavians. --Lambiam 01:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but at no point was the land now defined as "Germany" co-extensive with the places those people lived. --Jayron 32 13:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. So, should I replace the term "homeland/motherland" with the term "ethnic nation-state" here? Germany is an ethnic German nation-state, after all. Futurist110 (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to go that far back then Germanic peoples occupied England and the south eastern part of Scotland and therefter USA,Canada,Australia etc etc.Ethnicity is a bit of a construct anyway. Language and culture are more real and we should concentrate on that aspect if this discussion is to continue. I would have thought however that the discussion has rather burnt itself out anyway Spinney Hill (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)Spinney Hill (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 10

Thoughts of the Iraqi, Iranian, and Afghan Communists on the "ethnic/nationality question"?

What were the thoughts of the Iraqi, Iranian, and Afghan Communists on the ethnic/nationality question? Futurist110 (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the classic Marxist interpretation of the "ethnic/nationality question", see Bourgeois nationalism. I have no idea how specific individuals in Iraq, Iran, or Afghanistan who self-identify as Communists would treat the issue, but insofar as "Communism" as a field of thought has generally treated the issue, that article may help frame the concept in historical context for you. For a uniquely Soviet perspective on the issue, see Marxism and the National Question, Stalin's treatise on the issue. --Jayron 32 16:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I previously saw Stalin's article in regards to this. It was quite interesting. I do wonder whether the Communist Parties that I mentioned above ever had their full party platforms published--with such party platforms being accessible online nowadays? For instance, did they support the ethnic federalization of their countries? Futurist110 (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can read these articles about the views of some Iranian Communist parties concerning federalism: On Federalism and Nationalities for a Federal Iran. Omidinist (talk) 03:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; thank you! Do you also have any links for Iraq and/or Afghanistan? Futurist110 (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason, I had been blocked yesterday. Anyways, I'm sorry that I can't help more, because it takes much time. Have a good day. Omidinist (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no entries in your block log. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a 1902 Danish parliamentary vote

In this Wikipedia article: Treaty of the Danish West Indies – it is mentioned that the Landsting (as in, the upper house of the Danish parliament) refused to sell the Danish West Indies (now the United States Virgin Islands) to the United States of America in a 32-32 tie vote, with one abstention. However, based on the information that I gathered from the Danish Wikipedia with the help of Google Translate, the Landsting actually had 66 members during this time. In turn, this raises the question--what exactly happened to the other member of the Landsting? After all, 32 + 32 + 1 = 65, which is one less than 66. Also, who exactly was this other member?

Also, as a separate question, who exactly was the Landsting member who abstained from this vote? Do we know why exactly they abstained from this vote? Unfortunately, I don't actually personally speak Danish, hence me asking this question (about this topic) on here. Indeed, does anyone on here actually speak fluent Danish? Futurist110 (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Futurist110: I'm Danish but haven't found an answer, only lots of sources mentioning the tie, and a story about a member who did vote. 12 members were appointed for life by the king (eventually by the government in practice). They didn't always show up when they got old. The 96-year old Thyge de Thygeson was fetched from Jutland in an ambulance and carried in on a stretcher to vote against, creating the tie which stopped the sale. He was appointed in 1868 and died as a member in 1905. An 83-year old was also fetched by ambulance. One member was chosen by the Løgting in the Faroe Islands. They sometimes abstain but I don't know whether it happened here. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does Denmark have anything comparable to the Congressional Record and/or the United States House Journal? As in, some kind of publication which would allow one to see the names of who exactly voted on every piece of legislation ever (even 100+ years ago) and how exactly they voted on it. Futurist110 (talk) 21:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Futurist110: It may have been in Rigsdagstidende which was supposed to get online archives in 2020 but now the plan is 2021.[1] Folketingstidende has online archives since the current 1953 constitution where the Landsting was abolished. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PrimeHunter: So, I should contact you in one year about this topic? Futurist110 (talk) 02:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Futurist110: You can try. No promises. You can also keep track of [2] which currently says "Rigsdagstidende forventes at være tilgængelig her på siden i 2021" (Rigsdagstidende is expected to be available here in 2021). PrimeHunter (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 11

Internal migration within Austria-Hungary

Does anyone here know just how much internal migration there was within Austria-Hungary--as in, people moving from the Austrian half of the empire to the Hungarian half of the empire or vice versa? For the record, I am excluding migration from one part of the Austrian half of the empire (ex.: Prague) to another part of the Austrian half of the empire (ex.: Vienna)–or from one part of the Hungarian half of the empire (ex.:Temesvar) to another part of the Hungarian half of the empire (ex.: Budapest). Futurist110 (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found it interesting that few of Austria-Hungary's Magyars, Slovaks, Romanians, and Croats actually moved to the Austrian half of the empire--and also that few of Austria-Hungary's Czechs, Poles, and Slovenes actually moved to the Hungarian half of the empire. This is evidenced by looking at ethnic and/or linguistic maps of Austria-Hungary–such as the map on the right. (Interestingly enough, though, while most of Austria-Hungary's Germans obviously lived in the Austrian half of the empire, there were nevertheless sizable German communities in Hungary as well.) Futurist110 (talk) 00:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Military Frontier was created for the purpose of encouraging migration to lands near the border with the Ottoman Empire... AnonMoos (talk) 00:59, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, even in 1981 you could still see specks of Czech, Slovak, and Ruthenian populations on the former territory of the Austro-Hungarian Military Frontier: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/17/c8/34/17c834484c13f9e3e36f57e31a0715db.jpg The Slovaks and Ruthenians were located in Vojvodina whereas the Czechs were located in northern Croatia. Futurist110 (talk) 03:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, see Germans of Croatia (meaning ethnic and linguistic Germans rather than people from Germany). Alansplodge (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If only they had been neutral with Germany, they were still stuck in the mindset of the 1520s to 1790s when Ottomans were actually dangerous (attacking Vienna multiple times etc) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly enough, the Croatian German population right now is a couple dozen times less than it was back in 1900. Less than 3,000 right now versus over 85,000 in 1900. You can thank the post-WWII expulsions of the Yugoslav Germans for this. Futurist110 (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Considering my impoverished ancestors were able to emigrate from the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria in Austria-Hungary to the United States at the turn of the century, I think it stands to reason there was some degree of internal mobility of populations as well. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 14:25, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Were they Ukrainians, Poles, or Jews? Futurist110 (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Poles. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which city/cities were they from? Futurist110 (talk) 03:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One was supposedly from Kroscienko Wyzne. I'm not sure about the other. Genealogy gets tough with these folks once you jump back to Europe. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 05:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 12

How much was the US's decision to escalate the Vietnam War responsible for North Vietnam's decision to send its own forces to help the Viet Cong in significant numbers starting from 1965?

How much was the United States's decision to escalate the Vietnam War responsible for North Vietnam's decision to send its own forces to help the Viet Cong in significant numbers starting from 1965? Futurist110 (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 13

Apostolic Signatura – nomination of judges

Considering the Apostolic Signatura, how exactly are its members nominated? Is there any [English] source to be found, describing the nomination process and/or required qualifications of nominees? (I assume appointments as such are performed by the Pope …)--Hildeoc (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CODE OF CANON LAW - BOOK VII. PROCESSES "CHAPTER III. THE TRIBUNALS OF THE APOSTOLIC SEE: Can. 1442. The Roman Pontiff is the supreme judge for the entire Catholic world; he renders judicial decisions personally, through the ordinary tribunals of the Apostolic See, or through judges he has delegated". I suspect that the actual selection rests somewhere within the Vatican bureaucracy rather than being the personal gift of the Pope himself, but that's just a guess. Alansplodge (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Pope does indeed appoint the members. I doubt that there is a formal nomination process – and if there is, I think it is kept a secret, just like the selection of cardinals is – at least, the recent papal announcement naming Wilton Gregory and several others cardinal came as a surprise to Vatican watchers and also many of the newly created cardinals.^[3][4] --Lambiam 14:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Queen's Gambit

I've been watching The Queen's Gambit and am wondering: is it plausible that an orphanage in 1950s Kentucky would be desegregated? --Mahagaja · talk 10:24, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This 1948 magazine article strongly suggests not: [5] -- AnonMoos (talk) 11:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that article is interesting and sad. After I was born (in California in the late '60s) my parents considered adopting a brother for me, since my sisters were so much older than me. They were asked if they would be willing to adopt a child from another race, and they answered yes, they would. They were then refused permission to adopt on the grounds that they were "too idealistic". —Mahāgaja · talk 11:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Kentucky children's home originally had a separate facility for black children and was not desegregated until "the early 1960s". Alansplodge (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

did John Calvin celebrate Christmas ?

in 1538 John Calvin fled Geneva, and at the invitation of Martin Bucer, moved to Strasbourg. a year later, the first known Christmas tree was set up in the Cathedral of Strasbourg, under Martin Bucers leadership. did John Calvin believe in, and celebrate Christmas ? Gfigs (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Protestant Church of the Augsburg Confession of Alsace and Lorraine says that the city government appropriated Strasbourg Cathedral for the Lutheran state church in 1524 and that Strasburg eventually followed a halfway-house between Zwingli and Luther.

John Calvin’s Christmas Observance says (based on a January 1551 letter) that Calvin had no problem with the moderate observation of Christmas.

However, in a sermon preached on Christmas Day (a few days before he wrote the letter) he says: "For no day is superior to another. It matters not whether we recall our Lord’s nativity on a Wednesday, Thursday, or some other day. But when we insist on establishing a service of worship based on our whim, we blaspheme God, and create an idol, though we have done it all in the name of God. And when you worship God in the idleness of a holiday spirit, that is a heavy sin to bear, and one which attracts others about it, until we reach the height of iniquity" [6]

So it seems that Calvin was against banning Christmas, but didn't approve of it much either. See also Luther, Calvin and Zwingli on Christmas. Alansplodge (talk) 18:57, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok, thank you. Gfigs (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He must have been a lot of fun at parties. [NOT!] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

His views that omniscience prevents free will thus God intentionally created some sentient humans to appear to become saved by that fake free will then become unsaved by that same free will then burn forever which means they were never saved in the first place and he planned their burn millennia before their parents were even born while others' fake free will gets them heaven and this is the infinitely good diety are pretty grim. And of course Satan is in this best possible world too, not cause free will is better than enforced goodness but just "mysterious ways". Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin could have defeated Satan by talking him to death. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King James VI spoke much about demons in his book Daemonologie (1599). Luther referred to apparitions as the "devil's ghost," and Calvin as "spectres"..not surprising, that Charles Dickens Christmas Carol, would be "a Ghost Story of Christmas"..Gfigs (talk) 05:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe opposition to Christmas in Scotland might have had more to do with the Scottish monarchy's desire to control the Church of Scotland, than the beliefs of John Calvin..James VI, although baptised Catholic, grew up in the Church of Scotland, and wanted to unite it with the Church of England. in 1618, with his Five Articles of Perth wished to impose Christmas on the Scottish Church...his Catholic son Charles I, desired to do similarly..it incensed many, led to the banning of Christmas in Scotland, in 1640. Gfigs (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see Bishops' Wars; however it must have been reinforcing existing beliefs rather than something plucked out of the air to annoy the king.

Our article Christmas controversies#Puritan era notes that Christmas was also banned in England in 1647 and in Boston, Massachusetts in 1659. Alansplodge (talk) 12:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

my particular interest in Scotland, derives from desire to understand origins of beliefs of Charles Taze Russell, who's parents were Scotch Scots-Irish Presbyterians, and followers, who don't celebrate Christmas.. Gfigs (talk) 00:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: don't ever describe a Scottish person as "Scotch", it REALLY upsets them. Scots or Scottish are acceptable. Alansplodge (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is calling the liquor or the chess opening or the tape brand with the plaid (or tartan?) end tab ever offensive in the UK? I think these are still the most common names for these three things in America? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scotch whisky is fine as is Scotch tape, but that is generically called Sellotape in the UK. Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scotch-Irish ?? Gfigs (talk) 09:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The more acceptable modern term is Ulster Scots people. Also be aware that words in different dialects carry different pejorative or offensiveness markers (i.e. fanny), and what is offensive in the UK may be unmarked in the U.S., for example the Scotch-Irish Americans may self-identify with the term "Scotch-Irish" in a non-offensive way; that does NOT mean that the term is non-offensive to other people. --Jayron 32 13:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Kūhiō Kalanianaʻole in Japan

Many biographies of Jonah Kūhiō Kalanianaʻole including the one from the US House of Representatives claimed he was sent to Japan in 1888 and was a guest of the imperial government for nearly a year. They cite Lori Kamae The Empty Throne: A Biography of Hawaii’s Prince Cupid, but are there any older sources especially contemporary reports of his travel to Japan. KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

don't know really..interesting, that Kalanianaʻole was an early pioneer of surfing in US and UK.. Gfigs (talk) 10:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not contemporary, but Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole Memorial Addresses Delivered in the House of Representatives of the United States in Memory of Jonah Kuhio Kalanianaole, Late a Delegate from Hawaii. United States Congress House · 1924 (p. 5) says: "At the conclusion of his college days he spent a year as the guest of the Japanese Government , his uncle , King Kalakaua , hoping that he would marry a princess of the royal house of Japan". Alansplodge (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Older than 1980. You think this would have been covered a bit in contemporary newspapers. KAVEBEAR (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's surprising that we're drawing a blank! Also odd that his name is not showing up in Hawaii State Archives Index to Japanese Passenger Manifests, 1843-1900. Can you think of any alternate spellings to try? I even tried "Prince" alone, but no hits. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What did you try? I assume it would been Prince Kalanianaole. Maybe try Piikoi (father’s surname)? KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes Prince Jonas in the papers in 1887, but Jonah later. BTW KAVEBEAR March 28 for dob? fiveby(zero) 21:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have now tried (each in isolation): Prince, Jonah, Jonas, Kuhio, Guhio, Kalaniana'ole, Kalanianaole, Piikoi, Pikoi, Biikoi, Bikoi and even Cupid - no hits. (I know the search engine is working because I tried a common Japanese surname and got results!) 70.67.193.176 (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Trump Peace Plan and Israeli control over the Dead Sea Valley

There may have been a good question and a reasonable answer here. The thread has been hijacked by people who feel it is more important to scream angrily at people they disagree with over this rather contentious issue. I'm shutting this down as it has become a magnet for conflict and not to provide references for the OP to read. Next time, please don't do that, so the person asking the question can get the reading material they are seeking. --Jayron 32 15:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why exactly did the Trump Peace Plan allow Israel to keep control over and annex the Dead Sea Valley? Futurist110 (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're speaking of it in the past tense. Are you assuming it will die once Trump leaves office? <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 21:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, maybe not. It might get revived under a future Republican US President. Futurist110 (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110 -- Settlements in many areas of the West Bank were established by Israeli right-wingers encouraged by the Likud government which came to power in 1977 (while many "settlements" right against the Green Line were established as pure real-estate speculations), but settlements along the Jordan Valley were established by the socialist Israeli Labor Party before 1977... AnonMoos (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the Israeli Labor Party do this? Futurist110 (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we get back to Futurist 110's question. Thats why I deleted a paragraph The agreement will last until the US changes its mind and informs Israel. Since it seems to be basically what Israel wants they won't repudiate it and Palestine did not agree to it in the first place. I'd like to know why Mr Trump proposed or agreed to this as well. In fact there are lots of things about his actions I would like to know the reasons for.Spinney Hill (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Shall we get back to Futurist 110's question. Thats why I deleted a paragraph The agreement will last until the US changes its mind and informs Israel. Since it seems to be basically what Israel wants they won't repudiate it and Palestine did not agree to it in the first place. I'd like to know why Mr Trump proposed or agreed to this as well. In fact there are lots of things about his actions I would like to know the reasons for.Spinney Hill (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 14

Wigglesworth & Wigglesworth

Were Air Commodore Cecil Wigglesworth and Air Marshal Philip Wigglesworth related? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't they Dickens characters? 2603:6081:1C00:1187:212A:E63A:750F:BB04 (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking W. E. Johns characters. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Bunny Wigglesworth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a whole Wigglesworthy squadron associated with the RAF, including also Derek, Fred, John Spencer, John William, Kenneth Albert, Leslie Harry, and Leslie John. I have not found any familial relationships. --Lambiam 12:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gråbergs Gråa Sång was not far off the mark with his W E Johns quip. Cecil Wigglesworth was known as "Wiggles" in the service and was a friend of Johns, who later sought his permission before naming his hero "Biggles". See 'Biggles' and the American shotgun from the Royal Armouries. Alansplodge (talk) 12:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least one geneology website thinks they are brothers: [7] lists them both as the children of George and Mary Wigglesworth, who married about 1890. I know that's not citable but can anyone use those names to find something more solid? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thai cuisine

Hi! I'm looking for what Thai people eat for lunch. I'm doing a project and I thought that this would be a good place to ask a question. I've found Thailand breakfast, but what would be a typical lunch? Thanks! Dswitz10734 (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is pretty big, thai cuisine is an article, a long one too. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagittarian Milky Way: Thank you for your speedy response! I checked out the page and used it. Happy holidays! Dswitz10734 (talk) 15:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) "Lunch usually includes quick dishes like noodle soups, fried noodles, rice dishes and curries" [8]

"Lunch is generally eaten between 12:00noon and 1:300pm. Many people eat out, grabbing a quick meal or snack such as a bowl of noodles, some soup or a stir-fried dish. A typical Thai lunch is curried chicken or stir-fried vegetables with rice, noodles or soup". [9]

Also school lunches in School Days in Thailand: Stories from the Heart (p. 85). Alansplodge (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is making me hungry :-P Alansplodge did you mean 1:30 or 1300? :-) MarnetteD|Talk 16:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I just pasted a typo from the original text. Must be 1:30 or it was over a long time ago! Alansplodge (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking you might have meant 1300 as in the 24 hour clock Alansplodge :-) MarnetteD|Talk 17:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but they wrote "pm" afterwards. Certainly 1300 AD is definitely the least likely. Alansplodge (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For some weird reason this reminds me of the stupid real estate ads that give a house price as, e.g. "$750,000.00". Has there ever in recorded history been a house sale where the price included a non-zero number of cents? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britons getting assistance from MPs

Here in the US, members of Congress traditionally provide some assistance to constituents having issues with part of the federal government. For example, if you're eligible for government benefits that are being delayed, you might write to one of your U.S. Senators and ask him to ask the relevant agency to work more rapidly on your case, and if the senator sees the correspondence (not likely since legislators get tons of mail), it's considered appropriate for him to pressure the agency on your behalf. Of course, there are plenty of other matters with which one might reasonably ask one's congressman for aid, e.g. "our highways here are in bad shape, so please ask the House Public Works Committee to increase federal spending on roads". With this in mind, two questions:

In the UK, do people often make such requests of their legislators, and do legislators often provide this kind of service? Member of Parliament (United Kingdom)#Responsibilities mentions that MPs have responsibilities to their constituents, but I'm unclear whether they're expected to answer requests of this sort.
If it's considered appropriate, and if you live in a republican part of Northern Ireland, do you have any alternate routes to getting constituent service of this sort, or is the lack of constituent service considered a normal result of living in an area that chose a Sinn Fein candidate?

Nyttend backup (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nyttend, re your second question, here is what one Sein Fein MP says on his website: Paul is renowned for being a hard working MP who is easily accessible on the ground in West Belfast with his constituency office providing an excellent service to the people of the area.[10]70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will nationalist MPs advocate for constituents of nearby DUP/UUP districts who don't want to talk to unionists and their MPs advocate for those nearby who don't want to talk to nationalists? That would be one way around this. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I guess I misunderstood: I thought that Sinn Fein winners of parliamentary elections didn't do anything involving Westminster — I figured they just stayed at home and continued living their lives as if they'd never stood for election. Thank you helping me understand better. Nyttend backup (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything 70.67.193.176 didn't say so that they did anything at all besides being MPs in name only is news to me too. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding Sinn Féin’s Abstention from the UK Parliament doesn't really address the issue of what they do in their own constituencies, but there's no reason why they couldn't carry out many of their functions without actually going to Parliament. Alansplodge (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many of a constituent's concerns in Northern Ireland will concern devolved issues (that is matters dealt with by the Northern Ireland Assembly at Stormont when it sits) Sinn Fein do sit at Stormont even though they do not attend the Westminster Parliament so they can deal with the problems in the way you outline. Quite what they do with a non - devolved matter I do not know. They could write to the relevant Minister at Westminster but a Sinn Fein member of the Westminster parliament would not ask a question in Parliament for the constituent or otherwise speak in a debate on the isuue. As examples the COVID 19 public health regulations and the Helth Service are devolved matters but the special social security payments for workers on furlough because of Covid are not I think devolved matters.Spinney Hill (talk) 00:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC) Spinney Hill (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For question one, dealing with constituents' problems is an important part of an MP's job. I recently emailed an MP who was campaigning against a local road proposal to support his stance and to provide more evidence. He (or his secretary) emailed a very nice and detailed letter back. Most (all?) MPs hold "surgeries" where you can go and speak personally. Generally it will be for central government matters – for local government a local authority councillor may be more appropriate. Thincat (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although if you've hit a brick wall with your local council, an MP might be persuaded exert pressure on them to sort it out.

See also UK Parliament - Surgeries. A surgery is the British English term for a doctor's office, so its supposed to be like visiting your family doctor. Each MP has a "constituency office" in the area that they represent and will have set times when they are available there. Alternatively, you can arrange to meet them at the Houses of Parliament in an area called the Central Lobby, which is the origin of the verb "to lobby". You don't even need an appointment but you might spend a very long time waiting. You can also meet Members of the House of Lords in the lobby; they tend to specialise in particular areas in which they have expertise, for instance, Robert Winston who campaigns on health provision, Jane Campbell on disability equality or Doreen Lawrence on race relations. Alansplodge (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As was pointed out eighteen minutes after the question was asked!

You can write to your MP at the House of Commons or visit (though they may not be there now). There are regular constituency surgeries.

- 81.170.84.128 17:49, 14 December 2020

This [11] refers to "advising Members and staff to work remotely where possible and limiting all but essential access to the parliamentary estate" and makes reference to Members who are "not able to attend the Chamber". If you go to the enquiry desk and ask to speak to your MP a message will be put through if she is in the building but it's entirely up to her whether she sees you or not. 2.31.65.57 (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are an electoral college slate's humans ever non-fungible in name only?

Like if Nebraska said it doesn't matter but we'll ceremonially link 2 of y'alls' votes to specific senate seats for shits and giggles. If every state did this then we'll always be able to assign faithless electors to specific substates or seats for fun. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're trying to ask. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that they're usually fungible? You can't say which one was the 12th district or which is the senate seat elected on years divisible by 6, not even ceremonially, at least in canon. Except for Maine and Nebraska (which have 3 and 4 dead-ass fully separate slates of electors respectively), specific electoral humans might not even be associated with House or Senate (not literally being House members or senators which is illegal but just some canonical division into 2 in one group and the rest in the other, no matter how nominal) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Senators represent an entire state, not a portion of a state. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also the electoral college has nothing to do with senate elections. So it is hard to decipher exactly what you are asking SMZW. See Electoral college#United States for a brief recap. MarnetteD|Talk 19:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not directly but since we have 33 or 34 class A, B and C senate seats (there's no other way to permanently specify them besides class really), 50 first districts, ~44 second districts and so on it would be nice to ceremonially assign specific electoral humans to each one, their voting powers wouldn't exist without these other 538 seats after all. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This statement makes even less sense. There are no "class a, b or c senate seats" and what first and second districts are you referring to. We seem to be getting farther away from understanding what you are asking.MarnetteD|Talk 20:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Senate classes. There's 50 first districts cause the 435 lower chamber constituencies are numbered not named and each state consists of at least one. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are 50 states not districts. The classes referred to at that article are about how many senators are up for election every two years. It has nothing to do with any kind of hierarchy of importance. MarnetteD|Talk 21:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There too are 50 first districts, circa 44 seconds and so on till there's only a few 26th districts and one 51st etc (all the high ones are in California). This and the senate classes have nothing to do with importance and I never assumed that, they're just how we Yanks name our seats i.e. New York's 1st congressional district, in a random unimportant part to start counting. So that or something similar is how you'd call the districts if the elector chooser decided to ceremonially have an elector who's from each district or something like that.

True but there's only a ~100 in 538 chance that a faithless elector gets her magic powers from the existence of senators, except they're fungible so you don't know which electors. If a state split 2 electoral college votes would appear out of thin air so the magic powers do come from the existence of senators even though they're not assigned on an individual-to-senator correspondence like school lab partners. And they're probably never going to make any such an assignment more than ceremonial anyway so officially blame for the faithless vote still falls on the state as a whole and can never be assigned to a specific district. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The appointment of electors is decided on a state by state basis, but in some cases I’m reasonably sure the electoral districts vote for specific electors (who have pledged to vote for a particular candidate, and which is noted on the ballot). But that’s certainly not the case in my state and I have no idea how we pick the electors themselves (I’ve heard that it’s left up to the party leadership). I don’t understand your question otherwise. Perhaps a concrete example would make it clearer? 199.66.69.13 (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So if this state isn't Maine or Nebraska or 1 district then that would be an example of what I'm wondering about. The statewide winner still wins all of course. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the IP. Your question still is hard to decipher. The electors are not chosen by the senate. As noted at Faithless elector "Electors are typically chosen and nominated by a political party or the party's presidential nominee, and are usually party members with a reputation for high loyalty to the party and its chosen candidate" MarnetteD|Talk 20:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also there only a couple of states where electoral votes can be split. MarnetteD|Talk 20:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know they're not chosen by the senate, I'm asking if the political parties who choose them or the states who decide which party won ever (probably ceremonially) associate 2 of them with the senate, the rest to the House and optionally say you're ceremonially the elector of district X or senate seat X, even though Maine and Nebraska are the only states where this lack of fungibility is needed. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't associate their choice with the senate of house. Here are a couple links United States Electoral College#Electors and United States Electoral College#Alternative methods of choosing electors. MarnetteD|Talk 20:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know they choose whoever their party wants except a few ones that didn't change who won and their state's popular vote chooses them (2 states excepted) but, with the exception of those two I've never heard of individual collegians being associated with a constituency and I was wondering if that's always true. One answer informed me that sometimes they do in fact have a little informal district thing going on. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking if a specific elector is linked to a specific senator or representative for a state? If so, the answer is no. All that matters is the number of senators and representatives. Each state has 2 senators and X representatives, so each state has 2+X electors. The only electors that are in any way connected to specific congressional districts are in Nebraska and Maine. Other than those, all electors are pledged to the winner of their state's popular vote. The Maine and Nebraska ones are pledged to the winners of the appropriate district, except for the two each of those states gets because of its two senators, which are also linked to the statewide popular vote. So, if one elector from New York (for example) decided to vote faithlessly, you couldn't say that it was specifically the elector for the 3rd congressional district. --Khajidha (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, while the number of electoral college seats is tied to the number of senators + representatives, the specific seats are not tied to any specific representative district or senate class. They electoral college voters are just treated as a group, and have no specific representation more granular than the state level. This is even true in states that divide their electoral college voters like Maine and Nebraska; hypothetically if all 4 of Maine's votes went to the same candidate, you could not parse out which specific ballot came from which specific voter. Though logically, if Maine splits its vote 3-1 (which is the only possibility. 2-2 is not possible mathematically), you can work out that the odd voter matches to the odd vote, which was based on the way Maine divides 2 of its 4 votes by electoral district, that "voter" does not represent that "district" in any meaningful way (they are not required to be from there), they are pledged to the candidate in question, and are a resident of Maine as a whole. Furthermore, in the 3-1 scenario, among the 3 voters, you could not figure out which voter or which ballot "belongs" to the other congressional district. All states electors are selected at the state level, without regard for geography beyond that. Districts play no role in the process. --Jayron32 16:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you telling me it's like this:

The Democrats nominate:

Smith Brown Jones Adams

Republicans nominate:

Monroe Anders Blair O'Donnell

The ballot:

The Democratic dudes The Republican ones The Libertarian electors The Green electors The Constitution Party guys The Right to Life Party fellas The Party for Socialism and Liberation electors Prohibition Party party (party of 4) The Working Families Party working family party

Pick one

That's what the voter sees (without the jokes)

I had assumed it was like this:

The Democrats nominate Smith and Brown for Maine's electors

The Democrats nominate Jones for District 1 elector (perhaps he doesn't have to be from there)

The Democrats nominate Adams for District 2 elector

District 1 ballot:

Smith+Brown+Jones (D)

Monroe+Anders+Blair (R)

and the rest

Pick one triplet

District 2 ballot:

Smith+Brown+Adams (D)

etc.

pick one triplet

2 different but partly overlapping elections, 1 checkbox

So it's the first way? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? No. You're making this out to be WAY more complicated than it is. The people gather somewhere in the state capital vote twice: once each for President and Vice President, sign some papers and go home. It's not that complicated. Once the voting is done, each state sends two certificates to Congress to be unsealed and officially entered into the record: There is a "Certificate of Ascertainment" that just lists the names of the electors from that state (again, the electors are not assigned to any specific district, just a list of names of people who have the right to vote for President/Vice President) and a "Certificate of Vote" which contains a list of names and the number of votes they received for President and Vice President. The electors sign the Certificate of Vote, but no specific votes are assigned to any electors, the slate of electors just certifies the total votes by signing the certificate. The actual "vote" itself varies from state-to-state, but it needn't be more complicated than writing a name on a piece of paper, and in most cases it isn't. There may be an official "ballot" of some sort serving as that paper, with pretty caligraphy and stuff, but there isn't a "check box" or a list of "candidates" or anything. The electors just write the name of their vote on the paper, and give it back. Then someone counts the votes up, writes the totals on the Certificate of Vote, everyone signs it, they seal it in an envelope and mail it to Congress. Congress opens these envelopes in a joint meeting on January 6 to open and count the Electoral votes. See here. --Jayron 32 20:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking about the November ballot where you mark which president you want and sometimes "electors for" is above Trump's, Biden's etc's' names (maybe they don't even name them in some or all small states though they have room), in Maine you would be voting in 2 partly overlapping elections with the same vote. But you're right it doesn't have to be complicated they could just say "electors for Trump" "electors for Biden" on the ballot without giving any details, figure out if it's 4-0, 3-2, 2-3 or 0-4 then make a paper with 4 authorized names of the appropriate amount from each parties' 4 names. Youze on the list youze get to hand in a paper that says Trump or Biden on Dec 14. I guess I still don't know if it's always this fungible but I suppose it's such a trivial thing as they all just get smooshed together into 51 papers that say Trump x Biden y long before the January count anyway. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Szekely Land and an extraterritorial road connecting it to Hungary

After the end of World War I, were there ever any discussions or proposals about letting Hungary keep or reacquire the Szekely Land (as opposed to all of Northern Transylvania, including its huge number of Romanians) while at the same time building an extraterritorial road that would connect the Szekely Land to the rest of Hungary? Futurist110 (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary lost those territories in the Treaty of Trianon. I can find no information about your scenario at all. --Jayron 32 16:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the details of the negotiations, but I do know that the Allies were determined to punish Hungary, technically because it was an "aggressor nation" (as half of Austria-Hungary), but actually more because the Hungarian elites had been actively complicit in suppressing Slavic nationalisms before WW1, and Slavic nationalisms were supported by the Allies in the aftermath of WW1. The Danzig Corridor ended up attracting enough trouble; I'm not sure who would have been eager to create other geographically vulnerable ethnic flashpoints... AnonMoos (talk) 17:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 15

Statistics (other than census data) by race and/or ethnicity: The earliest examples of this?

Apparently the Russian Empire was collecting criminality data by ethnicity as early as 1915:

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/crime-in-russian-empire/

In turn, this made me wonder--what are some of the earliest examples of statistics (other than census data, which I do not want here) being done by race and/or ethnicity? Any country and/or territory in the world could work for this--again, just so long as you're not actually using census data–or some variation or derivative of census data–here. (The reason that I don't want census data here is because we already have a Wikipedia article–created by myself almost a decade ago–titled Race and ethnicity in censuses.)

Thoughts? Futurist110 (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this 1896 United States publication, I see separate mortality statistics for both white people and colored people: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Mortality_Among_Negroes_in_Cities/94lEAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=mortality+white+negro&pg=RA4-PA56&printsec=frontcover Futurist110 (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Todger as a given name

How common is "Todger" as a given name in the USA? What do Americans think "Todger" means? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 09:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you seen it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of Jack Nicklaus's grand-daughters has just married one Todger Strunk. DuncanHill (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is their Zola page. --Lambiam 16:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've lived in the United States my whole life. I've never heard the name since you just wrote it right now. I am but one data point, however. Perhaps one of the other 330ish million residents knows of another one. --Jayron 32 13:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto from this American. That's two data points. I would have thought that the meaning of "todger" was well enough known that no one would consider naming their kid that, though.--Khajidha (talk) 16:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way You're not the only person who found it interesting enough to comment on. --Jayron 32 13:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Todger" as in "every Todger, Dick and Willy"? --Lambiam 15:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC

The Artful Todger? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reportedly, Thomas Alfred Jones, VC, DCM, was affectionately nicknamed "Todger". --Lambiam 16:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine it as a British nickname, particularly in the services. DuncanHill (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re frequency question: If you are willing to download and open the zip file, you can get a list of all rare names given to babies in the US at https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/babynames/limits.html - this would tell you if there are more than a handful or not. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean anything to me. Not as a word, not as a name. --Amble (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Amble, see Wiktionary:todger for enlightenment. Alansplodge (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted there, it's a Britishism. Not used in American slang. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary also seems to think it's a "Canadianism". Never heard that ever. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's at least one other fairly notable American of that name, Todger Anderson. He seems to be past middle age, while the common noun todger is only 34 according to the OED, hence Mr Anderson can't justly blame his parents. I can't say if the Strunks should have known better. --Antiquary (talk) 18:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How would the Strunks have known about this Britishism? It reminds me of how the Brits were supposedly so amused about the constant early-70s reportage about the "Watergate buggers". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm an American and I knew of it at the time this dude was born. And I was 11 at the time. --Khajidha (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you see it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which Prince Volkonsky?

Which Prince Volkonsky was at the theatre with Alexander I of Russia when they received news of the Fire in the Winter Palace? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 11:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no one at Volkonsky that stands out above the rest, from what I can see, though we can narrow it down a bit. Only two male Princes of the family are listed there that would have been alive in 1837. There was Sergey Volkonsky, who from 1825-1855 was in internal exile in Siberia. There was his brother Nikita Volkonsky was alive and could have been the one listed, however Nikita's article mentions that they had a son Alexander who served as a privy counselor, so it could also be him. That is NOT The Alexandr Volkonsky we have a Wikipedia article about, but is likely related, as Nikita and his descendents appear to have been Roman Catholic, a rarity among Russians. It could also be Pyotr Mikhailovich Volkonsky, who is of unknown connection to the other Volkonskys, who was both Adjutant General and a court minister to Alexander I at the time of the fire. --Jayron 32 13:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources, such as this one, describe the Prince Volkonsky accompanying the tsar at the theatre as the court minister (not "a" – there was only one), so it is rather certain he is P. M. Volkonsky. --Lambiam 17:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recess Appointments in the US

I understand that recess appointments rarely occur in the US anymore because one or both chambers of Congress will hold pro forma sessions to prevent them from being out of session.

However, from the article, one thing remains unclear to me.

Suppose President X legitimately appoints Person Y as Secretary of State when Congress is out of session. Say, two months later, Congress reconvenes. Can President X then nominate Secretary Y as Secretary of State and have the Senate confirm Secretary Y in advance to pre-empt (or prevent) the position from becoming vacant again at the end of the session? In other words, "promoting" Secretary Y from a recess appointment to a permanent secretary.

The article says this is possible — "But those positions will end at the end of the next legislative session unless Congress approves the appointment," but doesn't explain why since Article 2 doesn't mention this possibility.

User:SamUK 11:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recess appointments are a form of interim appointment. Basically it is an expedient to allow for functioning of the department while the Congress is in recess. Remember that prior to the 20th century, especially when the Constitution was written, it could take weeks to get Congress back into session as members from the far-flung corners of the Republic had to get on horses and/or in horse-drawn carriages and make the long journey to the Capital. The logistics of doing so (which also often involved making preparations for a cadre of household staff and the provisioning of the entire trip, etc. etc.) was daunting, so the need to be able to avoid having the machinery of the federal government come to a halt during recesses was necessary. The original intent was certainly less cynical than you are proposing; the Senate would be expected to confirm the recess appointment when they met next. This page has a rather exhaustive explanation of recess appointments, and should answer your many questions. --Jayron 32 12:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can a US Vice President serve simultaneously as a Cabinet Secretary?

Is there any reason why a Vice President couldn't legally be appointed to a second Cabinet role?

Say the Democrats had won a big Senate majority this time around, and Joe Biden and Kamala Harris decided she'd make a good Attorney General. Could she have served?

Have any Presidents ever seriously considered a (second) Cabinet role for their Vice Presidents?

User:SamUK 12:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The president gets to establish the make up of his own "Cabinet" in terms of who gets to sit at the table during Cabinet meetings, many (but not all) vice presidents have been members of the Presidnet's cabinet, and all of the recent ones have been, according to Vice President of the United States and Cabinet of the United States. They are not heads of executive departments (called in the original Constitution "Officers of the United States", a term which is more expansive than just the Department heads and also includes federal judges/justices, ambassadors, and other positions that require Senate confirmation) , which are also all members of the Cabinet. Heads of executive departments are mostly known as Secretaries (except for the Attorney General of the United States, who heads the United States Justice Department). I can't find any information on whether or not a president could nominate their VP to be a head of an executive department, but it only takes a few minutes going through the complete list of vice presidents (it's not THAT long) to definitively show that it has never happened before. This thread from Quora reached that conclusion as well.--Jayron 32 12:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of no constitutional reason why the Vice President, or even the President personally, could not directly lead any particular executive agency. There may be statutory reasons why this would be undesirable or even unlawful. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, there's no rule against it, but that doesn't mean it was ever done, or any reason to suspect it would ever be done. Just because there's no rule against it doesn't mean there is a reason to do so. --Jayron 32 17:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would kind of be contrary to the very purpose of the cabinet in the first place. The idea is that the president and vice president have other things to do, so these people are assigned responsibility for various things. --Khajidha (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the president has other things to do. The Vice President has only two jobs: To preside over the Senate, and to be alive in case the President dies. The first has devolved to the point where they basically never do so except on ceremonial occasions or when there needs to be a tie-breaking vote, and the second is not terribly taxing, and allows ample time for other pursuits. Hypothetically, the VP could serve as a department head, but in reality the President uses the VP, especially in recent decades, as a Minister without portfolio, to act as another "voice in the room" in Cabinet meetings without specific responsibility, or to head up certain ad hoc projects as the President sees fit. Prior to the mid-to-late 20th century however, the VP wasn't a Cabinet-level office, and was often left with little responsibilities, official or otherwise. As recently as the 1930s, John Nance Garner said of the office that it "wasn't worth a pitcher of warm piss", and the first VP, John Adams, who often was bored off his gourd sitting through Senate meetings with nothing to do, said of the office "the most insignificant Office that ever the Invention of Man contrived or his imagination conceived". Modern VPs have more to do, but their specific role is up to the whim of the President. --Jayron 32 19:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure, since the Senate (and Congress in general) seems to be opposed to actually doing anything, there's no need for anyone to preside over them. --Khajidha (talk) 20:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not even that. See Presiding Officer of the United States Senate. By the mid 20th century they stopped presiding over the Senate entirely and really aren't expected to do that job anymore. Even before that the VP often found better things to do with their time, letting the President Pro Tempore do the job. this explains the evolution of the job over time. --Jayron 32 20:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is at least possible for one person to hold two cabinet positions at the same time. James Monroe was both Secretary of State and Secretary of War from 1814 to 1815. We have a List of people who have held multiple United States Cabinet-level positions, but all the other examples are without simultaneous overlap. --Amble (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

During the Civil War, Vice President Hannibal Hamlin was also an enlisted man in the Maine State Guard. --Amble (talk) 20:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which futures chart should be the best proxy for spot price?

The one that says carrying cost adjusted, carrying cost unadjusted or the one that just says contract? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 105: / Line 105: @@
 :[[Equatorial Guinea]]. [[User:Sagittarian Milky Way|Sagittarian Milky Way]] ([[User talk:Sagittarian Milky Way|talk]]) 02:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
+:Many of the countries listed in [[Failed_state#Examples]] are worth considering.  Also, I don't think that [[North Korea]] has been mentioned yet.--[[User:Wikimedes|Wikimedes]] ([[User talk:Wikimedes|talk]]) 00:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 == Presbyterian celebration of Christmas in Scotland ==