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.
That is probably no coincidence. Maine and Nebraska are the only two states that distribute their electoral votes proportionally, while all the other states have a winner-take-all system where one candidate wins all of state's electoral votes. You are going to have to refer back to the links in the first column listing each state's certificate of ascertainment, and cross-reference all the names of the Biden and Trump electors on those documents to the names that actually signed ME and NE's Certificates of Vote. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note that many/most Satanist don't actually believe in or worship Satan - they're really just atheists that like ritual and trolling Christians. Iapetus (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It depends if our Satanist manages to choose the right version of Christianity - that is, he needs to convert to a denomination acceptable to whatever denomination god turns out to be. It would be rather bad luck if he goes Roman and god turns out to belong to the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster. DuncanHill (talk) 17:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The non-facetious answer is that, under most (read: all the major ones, standard disclaimers that there's probably some small sect that believes differently, yada yada yada) strains of Christianity, an emphasis is placed on redemption, which is to say that salvation comes from being a properly practicing Christian (for whatever your denomination of choice defines as "properly practicing") and that there is no sin for which Christ's redemption is insufficient to cover. This is very general, and you're going to get a lot of difference between denominations over both the heady stuff (theology) and the technical stuff (practice) but at a most basic level, there is no sin that a person could commit that they cannot be saved from, according to most Christian thinking. --Jayron3218:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Impact of Covid compared to past pandemics?
Why did Covid have much greater social impact (like lockdowns across the world) compared to past pandemics? How is its medical impact (like death rates) compared to past pandemics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mulut Besar (talk • contribs) 11:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The different response was due to two factors, firstly that it occurred during the First World War meant that governments kept it quiet so that the war effort was not disrupted. Secondly, viruses were unknown at that time and the transmission of the disease could only be guessed at. Furthermore, the concept of central governments playing a major role in public health was not well developed, so countermeasures were often left to local authorities, some of which acted more decisively than others. Some developing countries were completely devastated by the disease; in Western Samoa, 30% of adult men, 22% of adult women, and 10% of children died. Alansplodge (talk) 13:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That did help Australia and New Zealand who were able to quarantine ships before they landed. However, the mass movement of people by sea and rail because of the war, meant that the spread was unstoppable elsewhere. Some of the worst mortality was on troopships; on RMS Tahiti, out of 1,217 troops and crew on board, about 1,000 were infected and 77 died. Alansplodge (talk) 13:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Covid has killed fewer people (so far) than the 1918 flu did, because medical treatment is better now than it was then, and/or because the virus itself is less virulent (it's hard to determine this). and/or because the 1918 flu pandemic was 2 years and Covid has only been under way for less than half that long. Covid isn't anywhere near done yet. Even though vaccines are rolling out now, Covid 2.0 (the UK variant) spreads much faster than the initial version, and people are no longer willing to take any resistance measures such as lockdowns. When they do implement a lockdown (usually because ICU's are full), they only keep it in place long enough to free up some ICU beds, and then they let the virus spread again and mutate even more. So a huge number of new infections and fatalities are coming, maybe even vaccine resistant ones. It will be at least a year or two before we can really compare the scores. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Black Death was not the first appearance of Yersinia pestis, however, despite being the most famous. The earlier First plague pandemics, especially the Plague of Justinian has been argued to have been at least as bad as the one 800 years later. Constantinople lost something like 40-50% of its population to death by Plague alone, and was further depopulated by people abandoning the city for the countryside. Constantinople was likely the largest city in the world at the time, a position it lost directly because of the plague and would never regain. It would be as if Tokyo lost half of its population in less than a decade. As bad as Covid (or Spanish Flu) is, we know nothing like the kinds of societal changes Yersinia pestis plagues caused. --Jayron3218:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why does every dang sequel have to be "2.0" anymore? Since the species is officially SARS-CoV-2, how about 2.1 if you must? Or even 2.01, as the difference is so small. —Tamfang (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's also the question of how strong the average immune system is today compared to 1918. Given the much larger number of known sufferers of allergies and autoimmune disorders, our modern "healthy" population might not be as resistant to infections in general as the populace was then. --Khajidha (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another factor is available treatments. Intensive care units are a recent invention. Back in the days when they didn't exist, they couldn't be overloaded, so there was no need for lockdowns to prevent ICUs from being overloaded. If everybody is going to be infected anyway, and healers can't do anything so they won't be overloaded anyway, it's best to get over it quickly and avoid those costly quarantines and lockdowns. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There might not have been intensive care units, but the dying still had to be treated and the provision of hospital beds for the population was much lower than today; in London the hospitals were trying to treat people in corridors and store rooms. A huge warehouse in London was used as a temporary hospital. An account by a doctor at the St Marylebone Infirmary:
"The staff fought like Trojans to feed the patients, scramble as best they could through the most elementary nursing and keep the delirious in bed. The patients increased and the nurses decreased, going down like ninepins themselves – sad to relate some of these gallant girls lost their lives in this never to be forgotten scourge – and as I write I can see some of them now literally fighting to save their friends then going down and dying themselves". [1]
I imagine that whoever uploaded the images was not really conversant with the category concept. It's easy to add in a category yourself, just hit the last "+" symbol in the category box and type it in. "United States Army in the Iraq War" is the general category, but the 73rd Cavalry images should probably be "82nd Airborne Division in Iraq". The last image could also go in "Portrait photographs of boys". There are a huge number of images awaiting categorisation, so I'm sure that the volunteers who work on these would welcome your help. Alansplodge (talk) 13:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that whoever uploaded the images was not really conversant with the category concept. You should see who uploaded most of the images above. That person is far too experienced not to know better. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at that first image. I think there's some Wikidata fuckery happening that auto-generated that category. Look at this diff from Commons. What the hell is going on there?? But the next couple images are from one of the highest upload count editors from Commons, and don't include weird Wikidata stuff. I don't know. I think whoever is uploading these miscategorized images was running malfunctioning scripts to automatically categorize (the tagging of 82nd Airborne pics as "Fort Bragg" makes some sense since that's where they're based) and they just never fixed this. But this is a Commons problem. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first image was uploaded in the middle of a long series of uploads that were (correctly) categorized as belonging to the category Mexican American History. Probably a slip-up by the uploader. All these images were taken by the same photographer. --Lambiam01:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other cases where the law forces one to endure extraordinary burdens in order to have a guaranteed shot to escape/avoid legal responsibilities/obligations?
Which cases other than child support (where male-bodied people literally have to choose between surgical castration and abstaining from penis-in-vagina sex with ALL fertile and potentially fertile female-bodied people for the rest of their lives--AND also avoid EVER getting raped by ANY female-bodied people--in order to avoid being forced to pay child support for 18+ years) are there where the law forces one to endure extraordinary burdens in order to have a guaranteed shot to escape/avoid legal responsibilities/obligations? I mean, I could think of abortion bans in countries where abortion is still illegal, but exactly what else is there that would actually qualify for this? Futurist110 (talk) 22:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would presume that driving a car would NOT qualify for this since if one unexpectedly had a stroke while driving and thus crashed into someone and hurt and/or killed them, then one would NOT be held financially responsible (or responsible in any other way) for this other person's injuries and/or death, correct? After all, in such a scenario, one's stroke wouldn't really be "reasonably foreseeable" (or at least not that much), now would it? In contrast, in regards to child support, "reasonable foreseeability" is unfortunately completely irrelevant. Even if you will get 99.99% of your vas deferens surgically removed, it's apparently still "reasonably foreseeable" that it will regenerate (grow back) and reattach, thus restoring one's fertility! (If you chop off 99.99% of one's finger, then it will NEVER grow back, but the same unfortunately CANNOT be said for one's vas deferens if 99.99% of it is surgically removed!) Futurist110 (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many people just assume that not driving a car is an unreasonable burden, but there are billions of people that don't own one. Other people think that not being able to have a couple of beers and then some more before getting behind the steering wheel is an unreasonable burden. If you are driving, you do not need to get a stroke to cause an accident. No one can remain 100% attentive full-time for long periods. A driver can misjudge a situation or be subject to an accidental visual illusion. While perhaps not criminally culpable, they may still be liable for damages. Most house fires are started by negligence of some form or other; do not use heaters or even electricity. Also, do not cross the street, except perhaps at pedestrian crossings where pedestrians have the right of way. Otherwise, you may cause a car to swerve and cause damage due to your crossing. --Lambiam00:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, even in your scenario, you've not described enough to avoid legal responsibility for child support. At least in theory, because it's not the child's fault, you could be on the hook for child support of a child born from stolen genetic material. Anyway, a lot of this depends on fairly subjective judgments of how severe a burden truly is, and how remote a risk we wish to avoid.Lambiam lists off some great examples illustrating why this list is essentially endless. If you don't have electrical service in your home, it is a factual impossibility that negligently-maintained wiring could cause a guest to sustain an injury. Of course in that scenario, you might argue, "then don't negligently maintain your wiring"; I would respond that the same argument applies to the pregnancy example. Contraception, while not making pregnancy a factual impossibility, is far more effective than your high school health teacher likely led you to believe. The technical details of that, particularly the actual failure modes and why they occur, I'll leave to the science desk. My point is that, the number of scenarios where your opportunity cost concerns arise are infinite. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I follow the OP's meaning here. It is impossible to guarantee not being struck by lightning, and that is likely to happen more often than the scenarios hinted at by the OP. Pregnancy avoidance is not that hard; and does not require surgical castration. Once again, we're going down this road assuaging their phobia about paying child support for a child he has no intention of having. If you don't want to have children, don' t have them. It's not as complicated as you make it out to be. There are many people who are childless by choice and it is not as complicated as you make it out to be. Stop using this desk to do this. Please. If you are worried in these directions, talk to a medical professional. --Jayron3214:44, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To Jayron's wise words, I might add that many males (including myself) find celibacy to be a perfectly tolerable lifestyle (though admittedly some others do not). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.40.9 (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In legal jargon, the situation where you are legally responsible for an undesired outcome even if you did your best to prevent it is called strict liability. That type of liability usually arises when you were doing something you didn't have any good reason to be doing in the first place: keeping a tiger in your backyard is the classic example. You keep it securely caged, but if it gets loose and eats someone, you are on the hook because what kind of whacko keeps a tiger as a pet? On the other hand, if you had a normal pet like a rabbit, that turns out to be descended from the killer Rabbit of Caerbannog and it eats someone, that outcome was harder to foresee so the legal situation is different (IANAL, this is not advice, etc). 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, looking at other strict liability situations is a good comparison, since you're responsible for your child regardless of whose "fault" its life is. And yes, ultrahazardous acts like transporting explosives or keeping dangerous animals are classic examples. A more concrete example for most people, though, would be certain theories of product liability. That said, I think strict liability is still not as strict as parental responsibility; liability in a strict liability situation may be avoided when the plaintiff has "assumed the risk" (though this is much harder to prove than comparative negligence). With parental responsibility, I believe even a child conceived through the deliberate and wrongful acts of its mother or a third party could be entitled to the support of its father. That and there are other ways out of child support that have no analogue in strict liability tort law. For instance, when a child is adopted, the biological parents' rights (and parental responsibilities) are usually terminated (I've heard of horror stories where they weren't), and the child's rights to inherit from the biological parents' estates are eliminated. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, so it disappeared, we don't know when or whence, was rediscovered in 1964, we don't know where or how, and was destroyed in a fire in 1966, we don't know where or why. DuncanHill (talk) 13:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
January 11
Which religion came first? Jainism or Hinduism?
I can't find a definitive answer for this, and I am going somewhat paranoid over biases. Can someone answer this (preferably within 2 sentences or just a TL;DR)? — The 𝗦𝗾𝗿𝘁-𝟭talkstalk11:04, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(Sorry to give you a four-sentence answer, but merging all my actual answer into a single sentence would make it absurdly long.) See History of Hinduism — it developed partly out of primitive Indo-European religion, and ascertaining a specific starting point really isn't possible, comparable to ascertaining a specific starting point for other manifestations of primitive Indo-European religion, e.g. Greek and Roman religion. Meanwhile, History of Jainism says that the origins of the religion are obscure and disputed. I think the answer is that a definitive answer can't be found. Nyttend (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But I note that that article does mention that the first historically-attested Jain figure was from the 8th century BCE; the Aryan migration into India, from which Hinduism would have arisen, is held to have occurred six to seven centuries earlier. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 12:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, what was the start of what we'd call Hinduism, as opposed to being one of the generically primitive Indo-European religions? For example, would the Vedic religion be considered Hinduism or something previous? The introduction to History of Hinduism appears to draw a distinction between the two, noting that the period 800-200 BC was "a turning point between the Vedic religion and Hindu religions". It's not so much a matter of "this started at some point but we don't know when"; it's a matter of "this didn't start at a specific time". Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the religion of the Kalash referred to as a primitive form of Hinduism, even though they, considering their significant steppe ancestry, likely represent a relict Aryan population that would be following Vedic or even pre-Vedic (i.e. traditional Indo-Iranian) beliefs. I accept, though, that "primitive Hinduism" may simply be another way of terming the latter.Admittedly, I was not aware until now that a distinction is drawn between the Vedic and Hindu belief systems, so thank you for enlightening me. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But to answer your other question, I really don't see why we can't use the divergence of the Indo-Aryans from other IE peoples (i.e the Aryan migration into India) as some sort of reference point, given that the variant practiced by this specific group was the one that would primarily contribute to Hinduism. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 15:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Everything points to the conclusion that the question cannot be definitely settled one way or another. "Hinduism is the world’s oldest religion, according to many scholars, with roots and customs dating back more than 4,000 years."[2] Can we believe these "many scholars"? Religions do usually not spring up overnight, so the best we can do is find the earliest attestable clear manifestations of a religion. According to the same article referenced before: "Most scholars believe Hinduism started somewhere between 2300 B.C. and 1500 B.C. in the Indus Valley, near modern-day Pakistan." This would indeed make Hinduism almost certainly older than Jainism. On the other hand, present-day Hindus might not recognize their religion in these pre-Vedic roots. As a religious belief, Judaism is an old root of Christianity, but it would be ridiculous to describe Christianity as dating from the Bronze Age. Pārśvanātha, the 23rd tīrthaṅkara, lived during the late Vedic period in which Brahmanism gradually developed over a period of centuries into a recognizable form of Hinduism. Whether current practitioners of Jainism would recognize Pārśvanātha's teachings as Jainist is anybody's guess; the oldest surviving texts were composed many centuries later. --Lambiam13:32, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Indus Valley Civilisation occupied land that is part of three modern day countries, not just Pakistan, and the adherents of the early form of/precursor to Hinduism practiced there would have lived in all three, not necessarily just Pakistan. I agree that "near" is a bad word, perhaps "in and around" would be better. --Jayron3216:12, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If something evolved gradually and doesn't have a clear date of founding, it's hard to say how old it is. As implied by Lambiam, there have been several somewhat different forms of Hinduism visible in historical texts, such as an early form practiced by animal-herders roaming the Punjab, while some later formulations were based more on an agricultural civilization along the Ganges valley. AnonMoos (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Most logistically challenging military operations?
The question doesn't make sense unless you have a way to numerically define "challenging". For example, Washington crossing the Delaware in 1776 was a tiny operation by the standards of 1944, but Washington's army was also tiny by 1944 standards and it was a big deal for them. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The invasion force deployed in Operation Barbarossa, about three million personnel, was the largest in the history of warfare. It is not clear what delineates an operation; can the Manhattan Project be considered part of a military operation that culminated in the atrocities at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? For the time, the cost (nearly US$2 billion) was staggering. --Lambiam11:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cases where there were (often irrational) fears of people of a different race or ethnic group invading one's country?
Which cases were there where there were (often irrational) fears of people of a different race or ethnic group invading one's country? So far, I could think of:
There is also a Wikipedia article about demographic threats, of course, but those are internal as opposed to internal. Anyway, though, which additional cases were there of people (often irrationally) fearing an invasion of their country by people of a different race or ethnic group? I especially want to focus on cases that have been prominent enough to generate memes such as "Yellow Peril". Futurist110 (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's been an extremely common political strategy for centuries to try to convince the less well informed masses that they are at threat from some "other" people, typically people who look and sound different from the target audience, and then to also convince that audience that you will protect them from this evil, foreign menace. Trump and the Mexican wall leapt to mind as I read the question. My country, Australia, has many forts dotted around its shores, most built to "protect" the citizens from those nasty Russian people back in the 19th century. In more recent times China, despite being our biggest trading partner by far, was chosen by our government to be the bogeyman of the early 21st century. (Muslims, of course, ran a close second for a while.) With extensive help from one of our greatest exports to the United States, Rupert Murdoch, many of our citizens now think a Chinese invasion is imminent. HiLo48 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There was a whole genre of Invasion_literature in the late 19th/early 20th century based on fears of being invaded by [insert neighbouring country/people that you don't like]. Typically French or Germans in the case of the British, or Russians in the case of Japan. (This eventually evolved into the Alien Invasion genre, starting with War of the Worlds).Iapetus (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to the Dutch, that policy had worked perfectly well only two decades earlier, and it's hard to see what preparations they could have made which would have made a difference to the outcome, beyond delaying it for a few days.
Yes. In the period I wrote about above, Australia wasn't even a country. It was six separate British colonies. So politically part of the United Kingdom anyway. Even at the beginning of WWII, almost forty years after the Federation of Australia, the Australia PM said (I'm paraphrasing) "Britain has just declared war on Germany, so Australia is at war with Germany too." HiLo48 (talk) 23:14, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I worked in Nigeria, there were many complaints about illegal immigrants from Niger trying to take over. It wasn't a right-left wing thing that white people complain about. It was a Christian-Muslim thing. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 13:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)x2 We see this throughout history. For example, as the Pax Romana became more and more precarious, citizens feared invasion by hordes of barbarians (the term originally referred to people who did not speak Greek) and this duly happened. 95.148.1.243 (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an anticipated or foreseeable sequence of events for President Trump's second impeachment, in the event that one gets rolling? The House might introduce articles in the next few days, but it seems unlikely that the Senate could complete a trial (or maybe even start one) before Trump leaves office on the 20th. So what happens then? Does the trial just keep going? Would the point just be to prevent Trump from running for POTUS again in 2024, at age 78 if my math is right? I have heard before of the possibility of impeaching someone after they leave office, but if it's really doable, there are quite a few other living and historical ex-presidents who would make good candidates besides Trump. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 22:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Constitution says "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." By implication, someone impeached after having left office can still be barred from ever holding a public office again. That would be the reason to impeach Trump, to end his political career. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 22:58, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's torpedoed any political future for himself quite thoroughly, unless he wants to move to Russia and run for the Dum(b)a. However, it would be nice to prick the Thin-skinned One as much as possible. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there's enough public support to elect Trump again in 2024 then using impeachment to prevent it just seems like a band-aid. Separately, I saw in the paper that he might pardon himself for whatever bad stuff he might have done. That would set off a legal battle, but let's assume that the self-pardon actually works, so he can't be prosecuted (we'll ignore any state charges that might be in play). Could he still be impeached for those same charges? 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to there being an explicit carve-out in the pardon power for impeachment ("he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment." U.S. Const. Art II, § 2, Cl. 1 (emphasis supplied)) my understanding of the mechanics of the Presidential pardon is that it (1) establishes a non-rebuttable presumption that the person pardoned is not guilty of either a particular crime or of any crime in connection with some act or omission, and (2) directs the executive branch to implement the pardon by, e.g., dismissing pending charges and releasing the pardoned person from prison. I do not believe a pardon precludes a scenario like we saw in (for instance) the O.J. Simpson civil trial, where someone acquitted of a crime was nonetheless capable of being held civilly liable for the harm to the victims of said crime. And as has been repeatedly stated over the last few years, a federal pardon does not affect criminal prosecutions by the several states.Thus—notwithstanding doubts about the constitutionality of impeachment after leaving office—an effective self-pardon would not preclude impeachment. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 02:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, there's a CRS report saying impeachment after departure from office can happen, though the same report is clear that it only happened once (in 1876), that person was acquitted, many of the senators voting to acquit raised doubts to the jurisdictional soundness of impeachment of someone that was no longer in public office, and that the current sources of congressional precedent raise concerns about the soundness of such an impeachment. In all other cases, and there are several, the impeachment effort was ended when the official left office. In all these cases, the office ended by resignation, not by expiration of the term. As such, despite claims to the contrary in the lay press, it's not a given that impeachment will still take place. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 00:12, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not really the only case. William Blount was the first person ever impeached by the House. He was impeached on July 7, 1797 - the House voted to impeach him and asked the Senate to expel him which the Senate did on July 8. The House then set up an investigating committee and present articles of impeachment to the Senate on 25 Jan. 1798. The Senate trial concluded 11 Jan. 1799, a year and a half after he was expelled. (He was already elected Speaker of the Senate of Tennessee by then.) [[3]Rmhermen (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just like the procedure of the 25th Amendment cannot be started without the cooperation of the vice president, the trial phase following impeachment cannot begin without the cooperation of the Senate Majority Leader. With their – unlikely – cooperation, a speedy trial would be a theoretical possibility, but even so, a conviction would seem to remain an extremely unlikely outcome. House Majority WhipJim Clyburn has floated the possibility of delaying the trial until after the 100th day of President Joseph R. Biden's being in office.[4] --Lambiam11:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that a post-inauguration impeachment is constitutionally sound is frankly dubious. Even in the Belknap case—the only post-resignation impeachment in U.S. history—of the 62 Senators voting on whether to convict, 24 of them openly said they didn't believe the Senate had jurisdiction to impeach someone who had resigned. See Hinds’ Precedents of The House of Representatives § 2467. No less an authority than Justice Story argued that the language of the Constitution raised doubt whether disqualification could be pronounced without being coupled with removal from office. 2 Story, Commentaries § 801 (citing a printed copy of the impeachment trial of William Blount, which I have unfortunately been unable to find). While I'm not going to claim the legal scholars who point to Belknap as conclusive proof are completely wrong, I would advise anyone reading about this topic to research the question beyond reading a NBC News article. It's honestly times like this that I wish there was a WP:LAWRS (cf. WP:MEDRS). Thorny constitutional law questions like these simply cannot be answered adequately by reference to a ~600-word non-scholarly news report. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
William W. Belknap was impeached after he had resigned and left office. But what about an officer who is impeached while in office, but leaves office before the trial? Even in the Belknap case, the Senate ruled by a vote of 37–29 that Belknap was amenable to trial.[5] So in fact this case is a congressional precedent, but for the opposite of what you appear to assume. --Lambiam10:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is a scenario that is being overshadowed by the impeachment news. Pelosi can start an expulsion from Congress (both the Sentate and House). Anyone who is deemed to be incompatable with public office can be simply removed. First, remove anyone who made social media posts that supported Trump. That is easy. It will reduce the number of Republicans in Congress. Then, with their numbers reduced, it is easy to remove those who have an appearance of supporting Trump in the past. That will reduce the Republican count again. Repeat until there are no Republicans left. Then, you can get a unanimous vote to impeach Trump, even if he is not in office. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 12:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a realistic scenario. It's not even fantasy, really. Maybe if we were talking about a couple people. But enough to shift the balance of power? And on top of that, do you know how long it would take to move through that many congressional expulsions? It'd easily be time for the 2022 midterms by then. And that's even if the entire legislative agenda was thrown out and they solely focused on expulsions. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 19:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article linked above also suggests Pelosi would have no official role in any expulsion from the Senate. While technically the House or Senate could change their rules to require less rigmarole for expulsions, they'd still need the 2/3 majority. Also, I assume anyone expelled would simply be replaced the way they normally are, so this doesn't guarantee no Republicans. I don't know why Pelosi would want a unanimous vote anyway. It's not like that guarantees a conviction and as things stand, it looks like the impeachment may happen regardless or what happens after that. (The IP did mention the Senate, but they only mentioned impeachment not conviction.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:27, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Charge him with treason or send him to Guantanomo as terroist without trial after he has left office. Really this man has made the US-supporters in all allied countries sad, because nothing was left from what we were told after WWII. He should be named persona non grata in Europe. Bahnmoeller (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The exact same thing was said about Nixon, Reagan, and both Papa and Baby Bush. If you live long enough, You will have a lot of Republican politicians who are the absolute most evil person who ever lived. It sticks until the next one comes along. How many times did you hear the "Bush lied-People died" chant once Trump was elected? Media has no memory. Every time a Republican is elected, it is treated like the first time it has ever happened. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
About 2000 people were present at the rally beforehand: [6]. However, 1) not all of those who were at the rally later stormed the Capitol and 2) Many who stormed the Capitol were not at the rally. --Jayron3216:35, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that coming to an accurate number is going to be difficult and depends greatly on what you consider participants. I don’t think there are accurate counts unless you just want the raw number of people that were present that day. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayron32: The 2,000 figure you quoted was the estimated attendance at the Tuesday evening rally, the night before the storming of the Capitol. The Wednesday morning Save America March rally was originally permitted for 10,000 attendees, but that was increased to 30,000 "based on responses and people already in the D.C. area as of Tuesday". [7] I've not been able to find official attendance estimates, though this AP Photo (6000x4000 -- here is a 876x584 version) gives a sense of the multitude. (It appears in many articles, including Trump addresses supporters at DC rally ahead of Congress vote certification; NY Post, January 6, 2021, 12:11pm.) -- ToE05:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheque Payment
A request from Germany: Some weeks ago, I got a FoIA request approved by the CIA. The problem is now payment, as the CIA allows only cheque or money order. And these two are almost extinct in Europe, so I could not find a bank to pay it. Question to the readers here, is there a possibility to pay in this pay from Europe?--Antemister (talk) 18:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
s both services, which sounds like member banks should too…? Checking the websites of the banks at List of banks in Germany, the first one, BayernLB, has a Schecks page which certainly sounds like it offers the service – so that’s one, anyway. If you cannot access that particular bank, you might check the others on the list. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried that, and either the banks tell that they have abolished that service years ago or they offer them only to long-term costumers. The Bundesbank and BayernLB are state banks without services to individuals. What I am looking for is something like a non-bank payment service.--Antemister (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, sorry Antemister. I know it's frustrating when you get an answer that you'd tried. I was misled by the list format into thinking that BayernLB was a regular bank. Did you also ask the CIA what European-compatible payment methods they accept? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@hugarheimur: Yes, this could maybe work (am a Volksbank costumer, they told me that there is no overseas cheque service anymore weeks ago, will try again, probably the guy did not know about that)--Antemister (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These service are not helpful here, because I do not have a bank account number. With bank account it is easy, because there are now many such service providers.--Antemister (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them have 'direct bank payment' option. Doesn't that mean you walk into a bank with cash-in-hand? Have you tried talking to someone at a bank? 107.15.157.44 (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the German Post no longer offers that service (Internationale Zahlungsanweisung). And I seem to remember that Western Union doesn’t allow making out a Money Order to an organisation (as opposed to a physical person). Cheers ⌘hugarheimur09:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Arrange for someone in the US to pick up a US postal money order for the amount, and send it to you in exchange for the same amount by Bitcoin or Paypal or whatever? Then you send it to the CIA. How much are you talking about anyway? If it's a small amount for a good cause that's of public interest, maybe someone will just donate it. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's article Par (score) revealed that today a condor was achieved on a par 6. Because par 6's are rare, the only way to get a condor on most golf courses is a hole-in-one on a par 5. A condor is indeed a very difficult achievement. But is it possible that someone might make a super-condor somewhere along the line?? That would have to be a hole-in-one on a par 6, which is indeed extremely rare because par 6's themselves are rare. (There are also a few par 7's, and a super-condor on such a hole would be 2, but they're not in English-speaking countries.)
Very important note for anyone who posts in this section the statement "I would prefer you say double condor"; please note that that term is naturally confusing because it would technically mean 8 under par, which is impossible in general because it would require the totally non-existent par 9 hole. "Super-condor" is clearly less confusing. Georgia guy (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Large-scale United States military interventions that were seriously considered and proposed but ultimately rejected?
What is large-scale, and when do considerations become serious? Towards the end of October 1962, thermonuclear war between the USA and the USSR was on the verge of breaking out, but does killing a third of humanity and ending civilization as we know it qualify as a "military intervention"? --Lambiam23:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By design, the military PLANS for a lot of weird things. There was even a plan for how to handle a zombie attack filed away by the National Guard in Texas (and, yes, they knew it was a joke). There are plans for defending against all kinds of weird attacks. There are plans for implementing all kinds of attacks. I am likely too old to take part in any discussion here, but from my day we had some odd things that came into the news. They were reported as factual, but I'm sure they have been debunked over time because everything interesting is eventually debunked. Churchill wanted to make a floating air station out of ice. The U.S. Air Force trained pigeons to guide missiles. In Vietnam, we had thunderbombs. They caused clouds to rain. The goal was to flood the enemy. That actually did get used, so it wasn't rejected. I'm sure there are many others that took place after the 70s that others here might remember. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The JSCP was not a plan concocted as an exercise and buried in a drawer. It was for real, and Ellsberg's discovery of it and his report to then-President Kennedy is described with considerable drama in Kai Bird's book The Color of Truth, which is about the Bundy brothers (McGeorge and Bill), who were both powerful figures in the 1960s. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Adultery is a grave sin in Islam. There have of course been countless Muslims, men and women, who were promiscuous but were not caught. So I interpret the question as, are there Muslim women who are notable and known to have been accused of adultery? For an alleged adulteress to be notable, there should be a reason for the notability, for example being the wife of a very notable person. Aisha, the third wife of prophet Muhammad, was accused of adultery but let of the hook when God (allegedly) sent her husband a revelation that she was innocent. (The evidence was apparently purely circumstantial and very thin.) Another reason is convictions in modern times that drew international attention due to the harshness of the punishment. One such case is that of Amina Lawal, a Nigerian woman who was convicted of adultery and sentenced to death by stoning. The international attention saved her. Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, a 13-year old Somali girl who had been raped, was killed by stoning. The case drew attention, both because of the young age of the victim and the egregiousness of accusing a victim of rape of adultery. Soraya Manutchehri, an Iranian women, was stoned to death for adultery; she became notable by being the subject of a book, later adapted as a film, The Stoning of Soraya M.. There are probably some more, but most cases, however tragic, never garnered attention. --Lambiam10:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to what some Muslims claim is the highest form of Islamic law (called "Hudood" in Pakistan), a woman claiming to have been raped (or the fact of her pregnancy, if she's unmarried) is enough to establish that she had sex outside marriage, but it takes the testimony of four male eyewitnesses to convict on a rape accusation. There are many obvious problems with that, but it was the standard applied to Amina Lawal... AnonMoos (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With that restriction, apart from Aisha mentioned above, I believe one other unfaithful female character occurs in the Qur'an: Zulaikha. This is a pre-Islamic character, though. She is not named in the Qur'an (or the Hebrew Bible); the name comes from a medieval retelling of the story. --Lambiam16:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeltsin on a tank
There is supposedly a famous and "iconic" photo of Boris Yeltsin standing on a tank during the 1991 Russian coup attempt. I found many mentions of it online, but few reproductions. Is this it, or is there another? I was imagining something more dramatic than the one I linked. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's it. There's a YouTube video of "Yeltsin's tank speech" that I'm not going to link here since it's of unknown copyright provenance. If by "dramatic" you mean something like him proudly standing alone (or highest) atop a tank, then I don't think such an image exists. It really just looks like he used it as an impromptu stage. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The links are indeed the pictures. When the coup plotters announced that they had taken power in the USSR on the morning of August 19, 1991, in place of Mikhail Gorbachev, Yeltsin called a special session of the Russian parliament and read a short speech calling for resistance to the coup attempt. However, as the audience inside the Russian parliament was limited, he then went outside and re-read the statement while standing atop the tank. The tank was one of the many that were sent into Moscow from a nearby army base by the coup leaders in order to scare the population into meekly accepting the coup. Yelsin's dramatic gesture caught the population's and the world's imagination and became the iconic image of that event. The coup failed miserably within three days as the population followed Yeltsin's call refused to go along with the plotters. Xuxl (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that background. It is helpful in understanding what happened. I fixed your typo in Gorachev's first name--hope that's ok, it fixes the wikilink. Brandmeister, thanks too, though that picture like the other one doesn't clearly show the tank. I guess the tank must have been parked outside the Parliament for a while, when Yeltsin came out to speak. I'm not a serious photographer and have never been at a world-shaking event like that, but I've taken plenty of pics where in retrospect I wished I'd shot at a different angle to avoid cutting something out of the frame. Those Yeltsin pics are sort of like that, I guess. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the typo; I did not have time to come back and check out my post as I had a busy day. Note that this event was before the era of the smart phone, and there were relatively few cameras around in the USSR, where they were a luxury item. It was also the very beginnings of a freer press, and there were not that many journalists going around either (the official press was waiting for instructions). There was such confusion regarding what was happening that morning that the few western journalists present were unsure where to go and what to cover. All that resulted in relatively few good pictures (there were more as the events progressed). Xuxl (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would Speaker of the House get their job back after being VP?
If the POTUS got 25th'ed today, the Speaker of the House becomes vice president until the 20th, or 7 days. The VP, who is now president, was elected alongside the original president, so they'd be done in that position. The new VP would be as well, but they were elected separately from POTUS and VP. Would the VP get their job as Speaker of the House back after their 1 week vice presidency? If that's not explained well, here's a table:
(ec) When the office of the President is vacated, the VP becomes president. Then there is a vice presidential vacancy. This is not filled by the Speaker of the House; instead, the 25th Amendment prescribes that upon such a vacancy arising the President (in this case the former veep) shall nominate a Vice President – who needs to be confirmed by both Houses. Only if both the Presidency and the Vice Presidency should become vacant does the Speaker of the House get a role; not because of a constitutional provision, but by virtue of the Presidential Succession Act of 1947. They are then the first in line of presidential line of succession, not to become President, but to become Acting President. --Lambiam16:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If Trump gets 25th'd, he continues to be president, but is put on something like disability leave while Pence becomes acting president. Pence continues to also be VP and perform his VP duties such as presiding over the Senate, I'm pretty sure. Pelosi stays House Speaker. If Trump gets impeached and removed before his term is up, Pence becomes President and the office of VP becomes vacant. Pence could in principle appoint a new VP and get that VP confirmed by the Senate, but that seems unlikely with just a few days remaining. There is actually almost no chance of a Senate impeachment trial being completed before Biden's inauguration (see other thread about that). The main thing a conviction would do is prohibit Trump from running again in 2024, though there is apparently an argument that such a prohibition would conflict with the 14th amendment. I don't know how credible that is. It certainly seems to me that if the semi-permanent two-party political establishment thinks the country might be willing to elect Trump again and it's scared of that possibility, it should ask itself what it did to put the country in such a mood, and consider doing something different instead. Impeachment just seems like a stopgap. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing a conviction would do is prohibit Trump from running again in 2024 Point of clarification: A conviction itself would not bar Trump from running again. There would need to be a separate vote, though Senate precedent is that it only requires a simple majority to achieve. Thus, if Trump is convicted by a 2/3 majority, it seems likely that the votes would exist for the second vote. But that’s my own speculation. there is apparently an argument that such a prohibition would conflict with the 14th amendment I’ve not seen that argument, and I’m not sure what it would be. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Short answer, no. Longer answer: Nancy Pelosi would not become VP as a direct result of Trump resigning, being removed by impeachment, or being incapacitated under the 25th Amendment. The only way Pelosi would become VP is if Trump resigned or were removed by impeachment, and Pence offered her the job and she accepted. The result would be her resignation as a Representative in order to accept the position as VP. That won’t happen. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pelosi would also have to be confirmed by both chambers of Congress, if we're being pedantic. The Senate is still controlled by Republicans, if I'm not mistaken, since it is split 50-50 and the tiebreaker would be Pence, who is still VP along with being acting president. We'll ignore the 14-dimensional politics it must have taken Pence to nominate Pelosi in the first place. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent has already been set. When Spiro Agnew resigned in disgrace, the office of VP was vacant until Richard Nixon appointed Gerald Ford who was approved by the Senate. When Nixon resigned in disgrace, Ford became the first and only unelected U.S. president to date. He appointed Nelson Rockefeller as VP, who was approved by the Senate and served out the rest of the term. Two years later, Rockefeller died of a heart attack on the midst of an "intimate encounter" with a much younger woman. It is hard to make this stuff up. None of these chess moves spread down to the Speaker of the House, who was Carl Albert at that time. Cullen328Let's discuss it07:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
United States intelligence gathering in the years and decades before the creation of the CIA
Yes of course MarnetteD, big typo! There were hundreds of concerts planned last year as well, most of which were canceled because of COVID unfortunately... Aza24 (talk) 01:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's say President X and Vice President Y are elected and inaugurated. A while later, X has a medical setback and is in the hospital, unconscious but stable. The 25th kicks in and Y becomes the acting president. After a while, it becomes clear that X is in a coma and might awaken at any time, but might also stay in it for potentially years.
It is impossible for X to resign the office of POTUS, since X is unconscious. Meanwhile Y does in fact serve as acting president for some years, with no end in sight before the next election.
Is there a way for Y to appoint an acting VP? Otherwise, what if something now happens to Y? Does the House Speaker (potentially from the other party) become acting POTUS? This doesn't sound set up the way the policymakers were likely to have wanted. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no mechanism for "acting Vice President". There's also no need for one. The Vice President only has 2 jobs, neither of which in a normal sense are very taxing, and one of which only happens exceedingly rarely. Job 1) is to be the presiding officer of the Senate; however over the years this job is mostly ceremonial and ONLY kicks in when their vote is needed as a tie breaking vote. Job 2) is to be alive in case the president dies or is incapacitated. For this reason, it was fairly recently (the 1960s) when the constitution made any provision at all to replace a Vice President. In your scenario, if the President is not actually dead, then the VP remains Vice President, and only becomes an acting President in the sense that they are authorized to do the job of President, but don't get the title. In function, they are basically both Vice President and acting President. Now, if a Vice President who is acting as President becomes dead or incapacitated, the next person up is the Speaker of the House, who becomes acting President. If they become so incapacitated as well, the next person up is the President pro Tempore, then the NEXT person would be the Secretary of State, and so on down to the Secretary of Homeland Security based on the United States presidential line of succession. AT no point in this process is there any mechanism (or, indeed, much need) to name a Vice President so long as the President himself is still alive. Once he dies, the Vice President becomes the Honest To God President, and names a Vice President pursuant to the process laid out in the Constitution. If someone other than the VP is acting President at the time, it is something of an open question, as that has never happened before. There are legal opinions all over the map with regards to whether or not, if BOTH the President and Vice President die, the Speaker (or anyone else) becomes the Honest To God President, or just Acting President until the next scheduled election. --Jayron3215:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, imagine in 2017: Trump is president and is reasonably popular at that time, Pence is VP, Pelosi is House Speaker, and Republicans control the Senate. Then Trump goes into a coma, Pence is VP and acting president and has high likelihood of being acting president for the next 3 years, but ZOMG, Pelosi is next in line! Pence could easily get a Republican successor confirmed if only there were a mechanism for it, but there just doesn't seem any way to get there from here. Same scenario could apply with the parties switched under Biden/Harris, if something happens to the Democrats' House majority. It seems like an oversight in the succession scheme. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well, there just isn't a mechanism. Your individual desire to see one does not seem to have been shared by Congress, which has not taken up the issue since 1947 (minimally amended several times to include new executive department chairs, when created) or since 1967 if you count how to handle VP vacancies. Write your congressperson if this bothers you. No one here can fix it. I'll also note that so far it has never come up. Indeed, vacancies in the VP position were so frequent, and yet such a minor problem, that despite basically a little less than 1/2 of all Presidents having at least some time in office without any VP, it only got dealt with in 1967. Oddly, the U.S. functioned fine for almost 200 years without dealing with it. --Jayron3219:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In fact we get into all kinds of bizarre events because the people who wrote those statutes weren't thinking carefully. The 25th amendment that they wanted to use on Trump was written because of issues that came up with Eisenhower. We need to throw out the Congress and put engineers in charge (joking--actually doing that would of course be awful in its own way). 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Before the ratification of the Twenty-fifth Amendment in 1967, a vacancy in the vice presidency could be filled only by a regular election; several individuals who served during these vacancies were referred to informally as "acting vice president."
["several individuals who served" meaning served as President pro tempore of the United States Senate.]
Acting Vice President of the United States is an unofficial designation that has occasionally been used when the office of vice president was vacant.
and:
Nonetheless, James Eastland, senator from Mississippi, was referred to as "acting vice president" twice while he was president pro tempore in the 1970s, during periods of a vacancy in the vice presidency.[1] The first occurred following the resignation of Vice President Spiro Agnew, prior to the appointment of Gerald Ford to replace him, and the second occurred when Ford became president, vacating the vice presidency, before Nelson Rockefeller was confirmed as his replacement. During both these periods, however, Speaker of the House Carl Albert was first in the line of succession to the presidency under the Presidential Succession Act of 1947, ahead of Eastland.
however that given reference is of questionable reliability, and I don't know if there are any contemporaneous sources referring to James Eastland in that manner. -- ToE04:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Technically speaking, the President pro tempore is always the "acting Vice President" given that one of the VPs two constitutionally defined roles is "President of the Senate". Since the VP often doesn't preside over the senate, the President pro tempore acts for them. --Jayron3214:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the article on Israel Zangwill's The Melting Pot (play), the hero David Quixano "decides to emigrate to an American country ... (and) ends up moving to the US."
I did a second take on this, being accustomed to "America" being synonymous with the United States. Then another: was he tossing up between Canada and the US, or the whole shebang, north to south, and if so what do these 15 or 20 countries have in common for a refugee? Doug butler (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know where to find a secondary source discussing this. However, the play itself is available on Project Gutenberg, here.
On the HTML page, the word "America" or derivatives (not counting the German/Yiddish "Amerika") appear 119 times. From a brief scan, I see very little indication that it ever means anything but the United States. I suspect that the phrase "an American country" in the article is the invention of some Wikipedia editor. --Trovatore (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Doug butler. When you ponder the concepts North America, Central America and South America, you will come to understand that the concept of "America" was much broader for Jewish refugees back then than the common contemporary usage of that word. If a ship for New York had just departed when an emigre reached the docks, they may have chosen to depart for Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina or several other smaller countries. There are Jewish communities today in all of them. My father-in-law's parents emigrated from Belarus in exactly this time period and somehow ended up in Berkeley, California despite being largely uneducated. Their son earned a degree in electrical engineering from UC Berkeley in 1938. Those were the days. Cullen328Let's discuss it06:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's two different, mostly unrelated questions at play here. One, answered admirably here by Cullen328, is the migration of Jewish people to the western hemisphere broadly. As noted, there are Jewish communities in every country in North and South America, and a Jewish person from Europe could have migrated to any of them; there's a larger Jewish community in the U.S., but that doesn't mean that none went to places like Canada or Guatemala or Brazil. You can find more to read about this in History of the Jews in Latin America and the Caribbean and History of the Jews in Canada for non-U.S. western hemisphere Jewish peoples. The other question, basically unrelated to that one, is the linguistic question of the meaning of words like "America" or "American". Generally, when the word "America" or "American" is used unadorned by any modifiers or determiners or anything else, it almost always refers to The United States. When a person wishes to refer to something else, they usually add some modifier like "North America" or "The Americas" or "South American". Whether or not it should be that way is irrelevant; it simply is that way. Language does not always follow the rules we may want it to. It develops on its own and can come to a state which doesn't fit with our desires for logical consistency. Oh well. See American (word), to wit "In modern English, American generally refers to persons or things related to the United States of America; among native English speakers this usage is almost universal, with any other use of the term requiring specification." The article does go on to say that some people wish really hard this wasn't the case, however despite their deepest desires, it is. --Jayron3215:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) @Cullen328: Possibly. But take a glance through the text with CTRL-F. Albeit there are a few references to Columbus and to America being discovered, in the main it seems pretty clear that the author is using "America" to mean the United States. The term is used together with references to the flag, and to a particular republic, to "our" Statue of Liberty. --Trovatore (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bet there are more than a few US citizens (and others) who believe that Columbus did discover the area now occupied by the United States (excluding Puerto Rico). Cuba was the closest he came, I believe. -- Jack of Oz[pleasantries]06:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the Old World, ESPECIALLY prior to World War II, 'America' was often synonymous with the New World in general. While that might not have been the case in England, to the rest of the world in the 19th (and very early 20th) century, the United States was not of any particular greater importance than any other country. (Great Britain was the world superpower of the time, and the United States kept up a fairly isolationist foreign policy in those days). So, I would say that the answer to your question is that it could have meant anywhere in the a New World. Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are there sources that support your assertion that (non-English) Europeans routinely used “America” to mean the entire New World prior to WWII? Blueboar (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Khomeini's the Little Green Book
Khomeini, Ayatollah. Khomeini's the Little Green Book. N.p., CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2016.
Seems to be available @ Google books but without preview. Like in this Quora online there are unconfirmed claims that book contains references to 'thighing'. A related discussion seem to be on @ reliable sources notice board subject seem to be under discussion.
Does any one has access to above said 'Green book' and can any one confirm if there is any truth in the claims? and if so what is the page number?
I have a copy of Tahrir al-Wasilah translated to English by Sayyid Ali Reza Naqavi in 2001 in e-book format (so page numbers are more or less meaningless). It indeed mentions "thigh sex" but not in that context. Thigh sex and menstruation: it is permissible to enjoy the menstruating woman in a way other than sexual intercourse through the front female organ, like kissing, or rubbing the male organ on the woman's thighs, or the like Thigh sex and fasting: If a person merely intended to rub his organ on the thighs, but the penetration has taken place unintentionally, then the fast shall not be rendered void., Ejaculation of the Semen, whether by masturbation, touching, kissing, rubbing (the male organ)on the thighs (of another person), or such other acts which are intended to cause discharge of semen. Rather even in case when the discharge of semen is not intended, but it was the usual consequence of the said act, in that case too it shall render the fast void. I cannot find any mentions of sex with infants. It is, of course, possible that the paragraphs mentioning sex with infants was redacted by the translator. ImTheIP (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That mention of infantophilia comes across as a jarring non sequitur unless one first reads the unconfirmed quotes in the Quora post linked in the question. -- ToE05:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would assume that sex with infants is highly non-Islamic, as far as anything that I've heard -- however, some (by no means all) historic traditions of Islamic legal interpretations have taken the hadiths and historical reports that Muhammad consummated his marriage with `A'ishah when she was nine years old as a precedent[8] (of course, this would apply in terms of lunar years, so nine lunar years would be about 8 years and 9 months in solar terms)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
January 15
Blair House library
According to our article about the President's Guest House in Washington DC, "The small library in the Blair House wing is stocked with approximately 1,500 books. Guests staying at the house traditionally present a book to deposit in the library." Is there a catalogue of the library and a record of who gave what? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is managed by the Office of the Chief of Protocol, who is under the Department of State. Currently, that is Cam Henderson. A new person should be appointed next week. I doubt the email address will change for the position when the person changes. The email address is protocolhelp@state.gov (expect it to go to a lowly assistant who sill send an auto-reply, but you might get lucky). Most official libraries are managed by the Library of Congress. So, I would expect that the response would be that the LoC manages the collection. Also note that the books are not very interesting by themselves. They are primarily books about countries or cities. For example, if the President invites the head of Somalia to stay, the head will bring a travel book about Somalia and leave it in the library. What makes the books interesting is that it is custom to write a note about good will between the visitor's country and the United States inside the cover. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Countries with a large population can, with their expanding economy, exert a greater influence on world politics as their economies grow over time. The pattern was established by China, which on a per person basis has a weaker economy than other global powers, but because they have so many people, that grants their government a large weight in international politics. China definitely wasn't in that position in the 20th century, but since about 2000 has risen in international power. India is a bit further behind, but if it follows a similar pattern, can begin to use the size of its economy to throw its weight around, given that India has a similarly large number of people. India belongs to the second tier of global economies known as the BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) that are believed to be on pace to approach and eventually surpass the G7 countries in terms of global influence. --Jayron3216:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to a map in Superpower, India is not classified as such, not because of their economy, but because they are considered "neutral" on the world stage - contrasted with USA, China and others who are considered to be adversaries on some level. <-Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots-> 16:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What actually makes a country a country, though? India is a large geographic area that's borders were drawn up somewhat arbitrarily by the British Empire, the people of which are made up of dozens of different cultures speaking dozens of different languages, and aside from a few major cities that have excessively huge concentrations of wealth and are global financial centres, the country is largely non-indusrialised.
While they're undeniably one of the main power players in their local international sphere, they're not a global power by any stretch, much less a super power..regardless of total population size.. (which has never been an indicator of 'global power' status anyway - many of the historical global powers have been relatively small countries). Firejuggler86 (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would call India a "regional power". In United Nations terms they're not in the top tier (Security Council permanent members), but they belong to the second tier of potential permanent members in a future Security Council expansion, and therefore they're above the third tier of "Uniting for Consensus" (i.e. countries which have no hope of permanent Security Council membership for themselves, and who are trying to block the second-tier powers from permanent membership)... AnonMoos (talk)
Most of these articles see obstacles in divisive and chaotic internal politics, corruption, social inequality and poor education. The last article also highlights dependence on imported fuel. Alansplodge (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Baptist ministers
In my experience with mainline protestant churches, the plain title "minister" applies only to those who have attended divinity school and been ordained, whereas "youth minister" and "music minister" are informal positions requiring no particular qualification. I am wondering: if a person is called "minister of discipleship" within the Baptist church, is it proper to call him a "Baptist minister"? Cheers, gnu5718:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A minister of discipleship is not a minister. A minister could hold the position, but that would be weird. It is usually a person who has a lot of community connections and can help organize outreach. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 18:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that there are many very different churches and groups under the general category of "Baptist." Usually, the one in charge is called a pastor instead of simply minister. Some do not require education for a pastor. Most do. Some people declare themselves to be a pastor without being ordained or licensed in any way. Most Baptist churches would not consider them to be pastors. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
97.82 has the basics down. Baptists as a denomination don't really operate like other denominations. In many ways they are the "anti-denomination", and even saying that, will confound even their own basic tenets in ways that look just weird to outsiders (to anyone who has spent any time in a Baptist congregation you get it, but you always feel weird explaining it to outsiders in a way that will help THEM get it). Anyways, I'm going to get all "personal observation" on you here (apologies for abusing the desk this way), but as an ordained deacon at a Baptist church, who was not raised in a Baptist church myself (actually raised Catholic through Confirmation) I have a bit of a perspective on this. A couple of basic things:
There is no "The Baptist Church" in the way there is The Catholic Church or The Church or England or anything like that. As a denomination, Baptists are fiercely anti-hierarchical, and do not fundamentally believe in any organizational authority higher than the individual congregation. You can refer to "a Baptist church" and there's always going to be an understanding that the congregation in question has certain central beliefs (see especially the first paragraph of Baptists). All decisions are made by direct democracy; a Baptist Church is not unlike a New England town meeting in that way. There's usually a steering committee of some sort (like a Deacon Board or something) but it's basically all voted on by the Church membership. There are some Baptist organizations, especially the Southern Baptist Convention, that have started acting like a centralized top-down denomination, but that has not been uncontroversial, and there's been a lot of kick-back because of that. Just understand that you can walk into a Baptist church, and find anything, from the most socially conservative, evangelical, church you can imagine, or you can find a lesbian pastor in the pulpit. The word "Baptist" on the sign out front doesn't tell you much with regard to that.
Baptists, among other things, believe in the concept of "all members are ministers", and that theological training is not required to do any job in the church... That being said, there are very few if any that I can think of where a senior pastor would not have a theology degree; most would require it either in their church constitution and bylaws OR would never hire a senior pastor who wasn't so trained. HOWEVER, for positions below senior pastor, such as children's minister, youth minister, music minister, etc; many may have theological training, but it's not a deal breaker if they don't. My church has had music ministers who only had formal music training but no theology degree, has had children's ministers with an education background, but no theology degree, etc. They often do, but they don't have to. Ministers are employees of the church, and they are there to do a job. They need to have correct theology (i.e. I can't see a Baptist church hiring an atheist music minsiter!) but there's no requirement beyond "is a practicing christian with a good foundation in Baptist theology". Many non-pastoral ministers (music, youth, senior adult, etc.) have worked for a number of different churches of different denominations (Methodist, Baptist, Non-denominational, etc.) and there's no real problem with that.
Just trying to lay out for the OP that it is quite possible for someone to have the job of minister in a Baptist church and not have a theology degree. These are formal ministers, in the sense that they are ordained by the congregation to be ministers, and this is because of the peculiarities of the way being a Baptist works. Unlike some other denominations, where a central authority may train and/or certify someone before they become a minister, because Baptist churches don't believe in such central authorities, it is left up to individual congregations to call and ordain their own ministers; and to decide their own criteria for doing so. --Jayron3219:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
January 16
Random spike in page views for minor Baroque composer
Stumbled across Cataldo Amodei, a minor Baroque composer, who has recently had a huge spike in page views (well "huge", as in comparatively to the earlier views). I have no idea why this is, and am curious if anyone sees any reason why. A quick google search of his name doesn't appear to reveal anything significant... Aza24 (talk) 07:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All I can find is that he's included in a concert in Marseilles in June: [9]. The description there implies that what will be performed is not a Christian religious musical piece... AnonMoos (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps he was mentioned in some radio (less likely TV) programme about music, or some particular composer (not necessarily him) of the period, prompting people to look him up. The BBC's Radio 3, for example, broadcasts such programmes as Composer of the Week pretty much every day, and I imagine that other stations in various countries do so as well. Is it possible to find out if the views were coming from a particular area, and correlate it with broadcasts covering that same area?
The upsurge starts on 19 November 2020 and the largest spike appears to be on 01 January 2021: for interest, the Radio 3 schedule for that week can be seen here and most if not all of the broadcasts are linked and can be re-listened to. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195|} 90.200.40.9 (talk) 21:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It does not have that smell to me. The "hefty sum" is offered to the shareholders, not to the company board rejecting the offer, so the opposition between the reward and the rejection, suggested by the term "despite", is not a clear-cut one. --Lambiam11:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What are the largest diaspora communities in percentage terms? I know that almost two times more Puerto Ricans live outside of Puerto Rico than in Puerto Rico and I also know that more Jews live outside of Israel than in Israel. However, what other examples of this are there? I know that, for instance, there are almost two times more Mongolians living outside of Mongolia than in Mongolia, but as far as I know, this is not due to large-scale emigration of Mongolians (like it is for, say, Puerto Ricans) but rather simply because Mongolia never actually annexed the Mongol-heavy parts of Inner Mongolia--only Outer Mongolia. Futurist110 (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do the Jews living outside of Israel form a community? Jews in the US? Jews in NYC? How to define "community" in this context? Would "non-observant" Jews living on the Upper West Side consider themselves part of the same community as Haredi Jews in Brooklyn? --Lambiam10:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned this before, but the Armenian and Lebanese diasporas dwarf the population in their two home countries. Haitians are also likely to be more numerous outside Haiti than in the country by this point. Xuxl (talk) 13:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why was there no large-scale anti-Mexican rebellion in Alta California in the early 19th century like there was in Texas?
Why was there no large-scale anti-Mexican rebellion in Alta California in the early 19th century like there was in Texas? I'm well-aware of the extremely short-lived Bear Flag Republic in Alta California, but considering that its core of support was literally only something like a couple hundred people, I can't really say that this was a large-scale rebellion like the Texas Revolution was, now can I? Futurist110 (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean why there was no revolt of U.S. settlers, the short answer is that there weren't very many U.S. settlers before the beginning of the gold rush. Personal accounts such as Two Years Before the Mast might give you a better idea of what was going on in Mexican California than staring at maps... AnonMoos (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
hi, I'm editing the Flag of Suriname article which has a section about at war. The previous editor wrote this about a war against womens violence in the caribean: On 20th of November 1998, the flag of Suriname was raised during the war of women rights in Suriname. There was a slogan saying “Women’s Rights are Human Rights” that was repeated several times during the war.[13]The flag of Suriname was raised throughout the war of violence against women that was located in the Caribbean.[13]
I removed that section. The only source linked had no uses of the word "war" or of the word "flag". Nothing related seems to show up in google either. Rmhermen (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The so-called Quadruple Alliance, and its expedition to Jerusalem in 1840
Hi there. I'm working on Dracula, and I'm wondering if anyone can confirm this source: "Between 1879 and 1898, Stoker was a business manager for the Lyceum Theatre in London, where he supplemented his income by writing many sensational novels, his most successful being the vampire tale Dracula published on 26 May 1897." While it is true, and I know it is, I've been burned before by trusting citations that were left in articles when I started working on them. The reference given is Barbara Bedford, Bram Stoker and The Man Who Was Dracula (London: Hachette Books, 2002), p. 269. I've failed to track the book down, and I'm trying to avoid Wikipedia becoming a pay-to-play hobby. Please ping me if you can assist! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gråbergs Gråa Sång:: I did have a look at that, but it’s unfortunately a biography of Stoker intended for children, so I don't feel comfortable using it. I've bitten the bullet and bought the book (that's a lot of B's). Thank you anyway! — ImaginesTigers (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit Conflict] ImaginesTigers, I don't have Bedford's book, but I can confirm that the same information can be found within pages xv–xx of the Introduction to Dracula: or The Un-Dead, a Play in Prologue and Five Acts by Bram Stoker, edited and annotated by Sylvia Starshine, Pumpkin Books, MeG Enterprises, Nottingham (UK), October 1997 [not 1897]. This is the first published edition of the playscript (a single copy of which was deposited in The Lord Chamberlain's Play List of 1897, now in The British Library Department of Manuscripts) that was written, and performed at the Lyceum at 10:15am on Tuesday 18 May 1897 with no public audience*, in order to secure Stoker's performance copyright in any future stage versions of his novel.
(*To fulfil legal requirements, bills advertising the performance were displayed half an hour beforehand, and two tickets were sold, probably for a private box: likely only invited friends and theatre staff actually witnessed the performance.)
Is this sufficient, or shall I quote the specific (though scattered) sentences that between them corroborate the information you quoted? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.40.9 (talk) 00:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
These don't look like US troops! Needs to be checked.
Possibly Teri Anulewicz and ?
Nikema Williams and Eva Lathrop
?, ? , Mary Robichaux, Mary Margaret Oliver
Jen Jordan and Bee Nguyen
Bee Nguyen, ? , and Dar'shun Kendrick
Eva Lathrop
Nikema Williams and Eva Lathrop.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg&diff=437836811){kind=link}
