Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

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.

October 7

How often are US states on political world maps and globes in the Old World?

I imagine they're ignored more often than here, being so small compared to the Earth. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:43, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the scale is large enough, one would expect to see individual states named on all maps and globes. Sometimes it is necessary to abbreviate the state names to fit them all in.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philip's (publisher) is the main producer of school maps and atlases in the UK. I couldn't find a really good image but this one appears to show state boundaries if you zoom in a bit. Alansplodge (talk) 16:30, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes see Australian states which are very logical to show as they're big, I rarely if ever see Argentinian or Russian states even if some are big, they could at least make an attempt to show as many practical but they don't so I wondered if the size of some US states often discourage faraway places from showing any at all too. Apparently not. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such maps have to show Alaska and Hawaii. In Soviet days, Western maps often showed the Soviet Republics, but Kazakhstan and the RSFSR were much bigger than any U.S. state while Belorussia and the Ukraine (as they were called in those days) had separate memberships in the United Nations... AnonMoos (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they have to show Alaska, my childhood globe had almost every state border, they tried to draw as many states as they could even if some shapes were deformed by closeness to the resolution. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a 30 cm diameter globe made in Europe, no US state borders. Alaska is the same color as mainland USA and has "Alaska (USA)" written on it (and a number of cities, rivers and islands named). 93.136.178.2 (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snipe hunting

Why would anyone go on a literal snipe hunt? (Not a practical joke, but intending to go out and shoot live birds.) They look so small that you wouldn't get much meat, and they look so delicate that they wouldn't make good sport-hunting trophies. 64.203.186.85 (talk) 21:10, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's presumably why its "funny" -- like hummingbird tongues and eye of newt as delicacies. 2606:A000:1126:28D:D8A9:F996:2EAF:160B (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People really do go out and hunt snipe. See snipe#hunting and sniper#etymology. I just don't understand why. 64.203.186.85 (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of good recipes for snipe online. Allow at least two per person. I don't understand why anyone should think it a joke, or funny. DuncanHill (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Explained in our article snipe hunt. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, an American joke. DuncanHill (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)As well as the already linked Snipe and Sniper articles: the real snipe is incredibly difficult to hit, and so being able to shoot one (without completely obliterating it with shot) means that one is an exceptional marksman. That said, one would probably be out hunting other game, see a snipe, and then shoot it just to prove a point to one's friends as setting out specifically to hunt snipe would be a fool's errand by any standard. People in the past knew that stupidly pointless tasks that were likely to fail were a waste of time (even if we and they might disagree over what qualifies). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe for the same reason that some (in my own experience, most) people go hunting; to hang out with friends and drink large quantities of beer. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Some bored rural Americans shoot squirrels. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They (snipe that is, not squirrels), are good sport (that is, require skill to shoot), and delicious. This article may help. DuncanHill (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You actually can eat squirrels (if you have enough of them) and hunting them is sometimes a form of pest control. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can eat snipe too - BBC Food - Snipe recipes. Alansplodge (talk) 08:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding skill -- that's the origin of the term "sniper". 2606:A000:1126:28D:D8A9:F996:2EAF:160B (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence indicating that the Saudi government and/or royal family has supported and funded Islamist terrorism especially 9/11?

Some people believe the notion that the Saudi royals has actively supported and funded Islamist terrorism worldwide and as a result, they view the allies and arms sellers of Saudi Arabia most notably the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Spain as having reaped what they have sown in all the religiously-motivated terrorist attacks and incidents that happened on their respective soils such as the November 2015 Paris attacks, 2017 London Bridge attack, and 2017 Barcelona attacks. Is there any evidence to support such a notion? Are the national governments of the West to blame for all the terrorist attacks against themselves rather than the attackers? StellarHalo (talk) 21:33, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those who commit a crime against humanity are responsible for that crime. Those who seek to blame the innocent people murdered by such a crime are little better than apologists for mass murderers. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No national governments have been killed (let alone murdered) by terrorists. --Tamfang (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy theories are based not on evidence but on paranoia and projection. See for example 9/11 conspiracy theories.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My theory is that it was not a coincidence that several planes were hijacked on that same fateful day, but that this was the result of a conspiracy. I also support the theory that the FBI conspired (unlawfully) to infiltrate the Black Panthers in order to sow discord. I may be paranoid, but that doesn't mean they aren't out to get us. If we discard all conspiracy theories out of hand, it gives the powers that be a free hand to conspire to their hearts' content. --Lambiam 21:22, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terrorist attacks do not attack governments but random individuals, including people who may have actively opposed the policies and actions of their government. Anybody can blame anybody else for any reason or no reason whatsoever, but to pass judgement on whether someone or some entity is to blame requires some criterion that I am sure cannot garner consensus. Consider the kerfuffle after the Reverend Jeremiah Wright said, in a sermon, "America's chickens are coming home to roost". A reasonable case can be made that the US made a grave mistake by first supplying the "student" insurgents un Afghanistan (i.e., the Taliban) with weapons when it was politically expedient to thwart the Sowiet Union, but then dropping all support to Afghanistan like a brick after the pro-Moscow government was toppled by the insurgents. That created conditions allowing anti-US sentiment to grow. The support of governments that trample on human rights and promote fundamentalism does not help either. So these may not be the best foreign policies if you want to counter festering anti-US sentiment that offers a fertile recruiting environment for aspiring terrorists. But observing that is not the same as assigning blame. --Lambiam 21:49, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor nitpick, but the US supported the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, not the Taliban. Some Mujahideen, such as Mullah Omar, later ended up in the Taliban but some other Mujahideen, such as Ahmad Shah Massoud, later ended up leading anti-Taliban resistance, in Massoud's case the Northern Alliance. Futurist110 (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam -- The sleazy extremist whom the United States supported in 1980s Afghanistan was Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (remember him?), and not either the Taliban (who didn't yet exist) or Osama bin Laden (who helped run an obscure support organization funded by wealthy Arabs). The U.S. gave Gulbuddin money mainly because Pakistan made it a condition of the U.S. using Pakistan as a hub for anti-Soviet activities.

StellarHalo -- I'm not sure that there's ever been a smoking gun for official Saudi support for al-Qaeda, but for a while the Saudi authorities seemed to have an informal understanding that al-Qaeda would not conduct operations in Saudi Arabia, and in turn, the Saudis would not crack down on donations made to al-Qaeda by private Saudi individuals... AnonMoos (talk) 07:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 8

What was Mussolini’s relationship with animals?

How did Benito Mussolini treat other animals? Did he have anything to say about them? Did he ever own any pets? —(((Romanophile))) ♞ (contributions) 03:43, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first result when Googling Mussolini and animals immediately tells me that he enjoyed horse riding and had a pet lion cub....--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mussolini loved to appear at parades and rallies on horseback for heroic effect. After the Axis capture of Tobruk in 1942, he ordered a white stallion to be found for his triumphal entry into Alexandria; the First Battle of El Alamein put paid to that. Perhaps petting lions fall into the same category. Alansplodge (talk) 08:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This newsreel] shows Mussolini playing with his lion. Whether he genuinely liked animals or just used them to enhance his own virile image, I can't tell. His famous quote, “It's better to live one day as a lion than a thousand years as a sheep”, was recently Tweeted by Mr Trump. [1] Alansplodge (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, it was "his" quote in the sense that at some point he quoted it, and a lot of people remembered him saying it. But it was not original with him.

Exactly who said it for the first time I have not been able to find out for certain. Secolo d'Italia attributes it to Ignazio Pisciotta, a WWI officer who I gather was just a captain during the war, because they made him a major when they retired him, but somehow retired as a general after being called up again to work in a museum. Il Giornale on the other hand calls it a "more or less anonymous" saying from the Great War.

It was also used in a fantastic song called Je so' pazzo by Pino Daniele, put anachronistically into the mouth of Masaniello.

In any case, whoever said it, I think you have to admit it has a nice ring to it. --Trovatore (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Trump knows that Mussolini ended up more like a side of beef. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Those who do not know history's mistakes are doomed to repeat them". Alansplodge (talk) 08:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep that in mind if you ever consider invading Poland. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any way to find older British laws online?

And not even that old. I'm trying to find an original text or reference to the "Malta (Constitution) Order in Council 1961"; I know it's SI 1961, vol. III, 4581. And I can find many sources online referring to it. But I have yet, despite browsing multiple gazettes, to find the actual text. It seems crazy that the Brits don't have something from as recent as 1961 online; am I missing something obvious, or am I really out of luck unless I find a hard copy of the 1961 statutory instruments? --Golbez (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried www.legislation.gov.uk but sorry, no hits - you might try with some keywords? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The National Archives would normally be able to give you a quotation for a copy, but I understand this service has been suspended for the time being. See here for the catalogue description. As the Order is presumably spent and no longer in effect in the UK there would be no great need to prioritise putting it online. DuncanHill (talk) 18:10, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And its not actually a statute, it's an Order in Council which is made using powers already granted under existing legislation. Alansplodge (talk) 07:42, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both those excellent points would explain why it's not online. Per [2], they have only digitized Orders in Council back to 2000, alas. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know why? Why does the US have every law, including Confederate, passed since the 1700s, but the UK can't even manage that since the 1970s? --04:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Why should we? If a law is no longer in force, what's the point? As pointed out, in the absence of a global pandemic a copy is available. The converse question is why does the USA make "laws" made by traitors available? DuncanHill (talk) 04:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Wikipedia article, Orders in Council are analogous to US executive orders, which are only available online from 1994, so you're not doing a whole lot better than us on this particular issue. Alansplodge (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 9

Books and other publications about the post-World War I peace settlement that were published during World War I?

Which books were published during World War I that speculate about the shape of the post-World War I peace settlement? I could think of Arnold J. Toynbee's 1915 book Nationality & the War and another 1915 book by a different author titled The Great Settlement:

https://archive.org/details/greatsettlement00faylgoog

While not a book, there is, of course, also the report about its recommendations for post-World War I Europe and the Middle East (including its recommendations for the new national borders) that The Inquiry published, likely during World War I.

Anyway, though, which additional books or at least published materials that were made during World War I and that speculate about the post-World War I peace settlement are there? Any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 00:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found The study of the Great War: a topical outline with copious quotations and reading references (1918) p. 38: "Proposals for Peace; Will this be the last war?", which was written in January 1918. Alansplodge (talk) 08:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; I'll go and check it out! Anything else? Futurist110 (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

President Wilson's Fourteen Points were also issued in January 1918. Xuxl (talk) 14:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm already well-aware of them. The reason that I did not specifically mention them here is because they were not a part of a book and/or some other publication. That said, though, if you have any other examples similar to the Fourteen Points, I am nevertheless very willing and very eager to hear them! Futurist110 (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only a month after the War started, Romain Rolland published "Au-dessus de la mêlée" (Above the Fray), which argued the war was a colossally stupid mistake and invited both sides to stand down before it turned into wholescale carnage. No one listened, of course. There's an article on the French Wikipedia, "Tentatives de paix pendant la Première Guerre mondiale" which has some details about additional proposals, none of which amounted to much. Of course, most proponents did not take the time to write a whole book about their proposals, but simply made the main ideas public, as Wilson did with his Fourteen Points. Others tried to advance them through behind-the-scenes diplomacy. Xuxl (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A number of articles about British War Aims were published during the war, including some speeches by David Lloyd George - see for example his The Great Crusade. I would not take any of them too seriously as models for the post-war settlement, as, in common with "war aims" published by any and all of the other belligerents, they were primarily intended as negotiating points and encouragement for the Home Front. As for "why don't we all stop fighting and be nice to each other" works by the like of Rolland, they can be discounted as wishful thinking by people who had no comprehension of how the world works. One might say the same of Wilson's contributions. DuncanHill (talk) 04:34, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez question

If Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez would have been born exactly one or two months later than she was born in real life, would she still be able to run for the US Presidency and US Vice Presidency in 2024? I'm assuming Yes because she would still turn 35 by January 20, 2025, correct? Futurist110 (talk) 02:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The age requirement in Clause 5 of Section 1 of Article Two of the United States Constitution, which lays down the required qualifications for electibility, is generally interpreted as referring to the time of taking office, that is, January 20 of the year 2025, assuming elections will be held in 2024. I think this has not been litigated and tested in court, but since the date of the actual election (by the Electoral College? or else the House/Senate?) is not definitely and definitively fixed in advance, it is hard to see which other interpretation could have binding legal significance. --Lambiam 10:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. So, it looks like my analysis here is correct. Futurist110 (talk) 18:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a curious opening in Section 3 of the Twentieth Amendment: "if the President elect shall have failed to qualify [at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President], then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified". This suggests that the US electorate could decide collectively to vote for Kelly Rohrbach to become their President in 2025; her pick for VP, say the actor Chris Warren, would have to serve as acting prez for one day. --Lambiam 20:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about if their Vice President is also below the age of 35, though? Futurist110 (talk) 21:11, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it is up to Congress to make a law declaring who shall then act as President until either the President or Vice President elect shall have qualified. --Lambiam 15:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's to be hoped the Electoral College would not let it come to this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let it come to what? Electing the Rohrbach–Warren 2024 ticket? Should they be unfaithful to the voting results of the individual States? --Lambiam 15:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Heym & Sauerwald Elektro-technische Fabrik

Does anyone know what was the business of Heym & Sauerwald Elektro-technische Fabrik? It was active around 1890s and it's address was Wilhelmstrasse 119/120. Owner were W. Heym and R. Sauerwald. Does anyone know who was R. Sauerwald? Was he same as Eduard Rudolph Alexander Sauerwald (1848 Berlin -1907 London)?Horus1927 05:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horus1927 (talk • contribs)

Not an answer at all, but assuming the address is a Berlin address, apparently the address housed at the same time the publishing company J. Guttentag.^[3] The lack of search results for "Heym & Sauerwald" suggests it was a rather small factory, probably dealing only with low-voltage installations and not heavy-duty electrical machinery. --Lambiam 11:23, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we are looking for the Berlin craftsman from the earlier question, who made instruments for Heinrich Gustav Magnus, Emil du Bois-Reymond and Hermann von Helmholtz, most often "F. Sauerwald" (wonder if this is confusion with de:Franz Sauerwald), the most detailed source found does refer to him as "E. Sauerwald". Brenni is Brenni, Paulo (January 1, 2004). "Mystery object answered: the Helmholtz myograph". Scientific Instrument Society Bulletin, No. 82: 34–36. (can only find up to #80 online). Ivan Sechenov supposedly noted his Berlin address here but i am having no luck searching in cryllic. fiveby(zero) 16:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On p. 109 of the book there is a reference to a "mechanic Sauerwald" (in the dative: механику Зауәрвальду) in Berlin (Kanonierstrasse, 43). --Lambiam 19:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, an Otto Plath succeeded in our Sauerwald's work at the same address ~1880, annoying there is not enough for an article. fiveby(zero) 14:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting with a hand grip

What is the word for this gesture? --95.115.28.241 (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It started as a black thing, and is apparently called Giving dap. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a handshake (dap can take many forms). Many cultures used handshakes before dap was developed in African American communities. I would call it a handshake, with little if anything to do with African-American culture. --Jayron 32 18:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article here: [4] highlights some different types of handshakes. --Jayron 32 18:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have Times (UK) access?

Would someone with Times access mind looking at this article to see if it mentions Antonia Gransden's maiden name? I have found two sources that have it as Harrison and one that has it as Morland, and it would be awfully nice to get it straight. Or any thoughts about other places to look? This obit is good for her scholarship but doesn't mention her birth name. Thanks! blameless 21:29, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Blameless: Best place for a request like this is at WP:RX. RudolfRed (talk) 21:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've moved it there. blameless 22:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both The Times and The Grauniad write that she was born to Stephen Morland and Hilda (née Street).^[5] Only snippet view, but this GBS result suggests that at one time she went by the name Antonia Harrison. An earlier marriage? --Lambiam 14:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, seems likely to be either that or a stepfather, but I'm uncomfortable adding it without confirmation. For now I've used just her first name in her husband's article (there's another mystery about whether or when they legally divorced, but since neither remarried I am not sure it matters for our purposes). blameless 18:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asquith or Askwith?

At what point, and for what reasons, did the spellings of Askwith and Asquith diverge? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 22:44, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per the Oxford Dictionary of Place Names, the village was Ascvid in the Domesday Book (from Old Scandinavian askr + vithr meaning "ash wood"). As the village's article mentions, in the 19th century it was being variously recorded either as "Askwith", or as "Asquith" from which the surname derives. I suspect the latter was a supposedly learnéd rendition based on false etymology, but have no evidence. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.162.83 (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several English words starting with 'qu' are inherited via Middle English from Anglo-Norman or have Germanic roots (e.g. queen, quench, quick, quiver), so a 'qu' spelling is not specifically a learned one. Apparently there is a record of one Joseph Asquith who flourished in 1664 (but not much longer).^[6] English orthography was still kind of a free-for-all in the 17th century; Johnson's Dictionary was only published in 1755. This was even more true for proper nouns. One spelling may have become ensconced within the Asquith family, while another may have independently become the preferred one for the registrars of the village. The 19th-century occurrences of the spelling Asquith for the village may have been influenced by the already established spelling of the notable family. --Lambiam 14:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some interesting discussions: [7], [8], [9]. 2A00:23C6:2403:E900:A9B0:FBB2:63AF:F685 (talk) 11:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 10

Settler colonialism that was done with the consent of the existing population of a particular territory?

Which cases of settler colonialism have there been that were done with the consent of the existing population of a particular territory? Futurist110 (talk) 03:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the legends of the founding of Carthage, the natives of the area gave permission. In the pre-Roman Mediterranean, many colonies were coastal trading outposts without much possibility to expand beyond their coastal enclaves. If the native inhabitants of such areas welcomed trade goods, but had no ability to conduct long-distance maritime trade themselves, then they often welcomed the colonies... AnonMoos (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also the legend of Hengist and Horsa. Alansplodge (talk) 12:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. What about in more modern times? Futurist110 (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the book Humans, Tom Phillips writes that in the first half of the 19th century, when Mexico was newly independent from Spain, they "decided to put the underdeveloped land in their northern province of Texas to good use. Wanting a buffer zone that would protect Mexico from both raids by the Comanche people and the westward growth of the United States, the Mexicans started encouraging American ranchers and farmers to come and settle in the area". But the American community wanted political power, with the result that "in 1830 the Mexicans abruptly tried to ban any further American immigration, but found themselves powerless to stop the influx of American immigrants". When the authoritarian Santa Anna took power in Mexico, Texas revolted, and of course later joined the US. Phillips concludes: "There are a couple of divergent lessons we can draw from this. On the one hand, there's 'don't encourage immigration only to later turn against those same immigrant communities'. On the other, there's also 'don't assume that you'll always be a democracy, because THAT'S EXACTLY WHEN THINGS GO WRONG'."

I don't know how accurate this is; I have not looked for other descriptions of these events.--174.89.48.182 (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American settlers in the area of Texas were known as the Empresarios. You can read more at that article, and you can find more information at additional links from that article. --Jayron 32 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did Mexico also invite US settlers into California? Or did the US settlers who came to California do so without the Mexican government's permission and consent? Futurist110 (talk) 07:32, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Under Mexico, the current state of California was at the time part of the (larger) territory of Alta California. You may want to start your research there. --Jayron 32 18:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This depends on who's telling the story. For example, for my city in Australia, Melbourne#Early history and foundation tells us "...John Batman, a leading member of the Port Phillip Association in Van Diemen's Land, explored the Melbourne area, and later claimed to have negotiated a purchase of 600,000 acres (2,400 km2) with eight Wurundjeri elders." It has been argued since that language and cultural barriers made it impossible for there to have been any real understanding on the part of the Aboriginal people as to what they allegedly agreed to. I'm sure this story has been repeated dozens of times all over the world. HiLo48 (talk)

Even if these elders understood the deal fully well, one wonders if they were authorized to seal it. I think I can find some New York elders with whom I can negotiate the purchase of the Brooklyn Bridge for a case of wine. --Lambiam 14:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The indigenous population of Egypt (the Copts, who are monophysite) were persecuted by the Orthodox church. They welcomed the Muslims for this reason but soon realised their mistake. Proof of the adage "better the devil you know than the devil you don't". 2A00:23C6:2403:E900:A9B0:FBB2:63AF:F685 (talk)

In Ontario, Joseph Brant wanted to bring Europeans into the territory he was given by the crown so that his people would learn better agricultural practices from them and to use the money from selling land to the settlers to invest in his community. Of 19 (talk) 00:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The change in Iraq's religious demographics over time?

Does anyone here know how Iraq's religious demographics have changed over time? Futurist110 (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics of Iraq#Religions 2 has some unreferenced guestimates. Alansplodge (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UK Government stats are on page 11 of this report. Alansplodge (talk) 12:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA Factbook from various years may show you the differences over time. RudolfRed (talk) 02:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Futurist110 (talk) 04:00, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2nd Amendment interpretation

My argument on 2nd amendment is that regarding semi auto/auto/bolt action/lever action weapons, the Founders could not have conceived of such weaponry and they should be more regulated beyond strict interpretation. Strict interpretation leaves these weapons as an outlier. My question is.. Has there ever been an argument in the myriad court cases to this effect? -- 108.222.210.123 (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that, but there have been arguments about whether a strict Originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution would allow an air force to exist (see [10] etc) -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus among legal scholars appears to be that the Second Amendment does not imply "the right to bear bazookas", although at least one court has issued an originalist ruling that seems to imply this right.^[11] I wonder if this court would also uphold the right to keep and bear Davy Crocketts (with warheads). --Lambiam 14:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

District of Columbia v. Heller addressed this:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
— Justice Scalia, Opinion of the Court[12]

fiveby(zero) 14:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it doesn't; a person can certainly "bear" a Stinger surface-to-air missile, but to do so is a federal felony punishable by life imprisonment. The idea that there is a simple, neat, clean definition of "bearable arms" which are all legal, is simply another fallacy of Scalia's nonsense originalism. The Second Amendment cannot be read literally, and not even originalists are willing to try. They just want to pretend it can to defend outcomes they want. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The OP is asking for an argument in the myriad court cases. Your own opinion is of no value here. fiveby(zero) 15:45, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a slew amicus briefs for Heller and having trouble finding which makes the argument you are looking for. May be something in the briefs for Caetano v. Massachusetts. fiveby(zero) 15:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ardent defenders of the 2nd Amendment say that its purpose is "to defend against a tyrannical government." Presumably that's what the alleged kidnapping plotters in Michigan were using to justify their plans. However, without military-grade weapons being available to the general public, that "defense" argument has very little practical value. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why some think the AKs and M4s of today's average infantrymen should be as easy to get as mundane civilian guns. Would that work? I dunno. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "dangerous and unusual" see Kolbe v. Hogan and "arms in existence in the 18th century". fiveby(zero) 16:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, private ownership or sale/transfer of machine guns requires the approval of the Attorney General if the weapon was manufactured after 1986. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favorite responses to this exceptionally common "the founders never could have conceived" argument (thoroughly put to bed in Heller as noted above) is to note that the founders never could have conceived of a home printer that could turn out dozens of pages per minute of the vilest libel, sedition, and obscenity that virtually any person could operate. Yet the First Amendment still protects ownership of those devices. 199.66.69.32 (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Libel is not protected speech or print. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Libel is not protected speech, and murder is not a protected use of a firearm. But 199's assertion is that suppression of printing devices (not their uses) would run afoul of the First Amendment. I'm not sure whether that's actually true; I'm not aware of any serious proposal to ban printers, so it has never really come up. But I could see the argument being made. --Trovatore (talk) 21:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While we are getting off-topic, I might add that some on this side of the world wonder about the "well trained militia". Doug butler (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically, that clause is called an absolute, and these are quite rare in law so it's problematic figuring out what to do with it. Generally, in English, absolutes have the force of a subordinate clause, providing context for the main part of the sentence but usually not altering its meaning.

That would make it a surplusage. There's a principle of statutory interpretation called the "rule against surplusages", which suggests that interpretations should try to "give effect" to all parts of legal text. But the originalist argument is that there is no way consonant with ordinary English semantics to read this clause as limiting the right to its exercise in a militia. --Trovatore (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it says "well regulated". Legalistically, the National Guard is considered to fit that definition. These characters calling themselves "militia" are sometimes just domestic terrorists. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you try to refrain from inserting your personal opinions into the discussions? --Lambiam 12:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the opinion of the Michigan governor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should have written, "According to Michigan governor Whitmer, ...". But what she objected to was not people calling themselves "militia", but to the use of that label by the FBI in the complaint^[13] against the group accused of planning to assault the State Capitol and arrest her. --Lambiam 20:26, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic terrorism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The entire clause is treated as surplusage following Heller. My take is that it functions something like a "legislative findings" section in a statute; it doesn't have any effect itself, but speaks of an aspirational goal or motivating concern that the legislative body had when passing the law. It certainly does not function as "words of limitation", confining the bearing of arms to members of a state militia when in service.

My personal take, which I've not seen elsewhere, is that the militia clause makes clear that the framers wanted an armed civilian populace that could rise up in defense of the country on a moment's notice, and in order for this to happen in a "well regulated" or orderly and effective fashion, the civilian populace would need to have access to and experience with arms sufficient for defending the nation against threats, foreign and domestic. I think to the extent the term "militia" itself provides a limiting principle, it's that the Second Amendment shouldn't be thought of as permitting the raising of a private army to fight a war of aggression, or of eliminating the marque power reserved to the Congress, or otherwise interfere in foreign affairs matters reserved to the President. In the modern sense, this would mean the Second Amendment wouldn't permit unfettered possession of weapons of mass destruction, artillery, tanks, militarized fighter aircraft, warships, etc. 199.66.69.32 (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while a lot of people claim that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to allow people to form a militia to overthrow the government of it becomes tyrannical, the actual US Constitution explicitly states that the President is the Commander in Chief of the militias, and that they can be called up for the purpose of suppressing insurrection. Iapetus (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And making war on the USA is treason. I've asked gun-loving acquaintances, "Who decides if the government has become tyrannical?" They've got no answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One man's tyranny is another man's not tyranny. One man's duh that Marxist or caliphate or Marxist climatologist takeover of Earth or holocaust of Earth's whites and Palestinians won't happen is another man's insane belief. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source needed for Beethoven Statue by János Horvay

Hi, I'm working on List of monuments to Ludwig van Beethoven and I'm unable to find a reliable source for a statue of Beethoven in Budapest, Hungary. The Commons file says that it is by János Horvay and was installed in 1932 but I can't find any source to support this. Any help would be appreciated. Aza24 (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A google search for the four keywords beethoven statue budapest horvay found multiple references. The caption to File:János Horvay - Beethoven - 1932 (1).jpg gives the location in Budapest as the hu:Városmajor. Checking Google Maps shows that the statue is indeed there, labeled as the "Beethoven szobor" and visible in Street View imagery. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources say (snippeted) "... Beethoven. Városmajor Park. By János Horvay",^[14] and (translated) "a statue by János Horvay of Beethoven (original in Városmajor, Buda, 1932)."^[15]

An English language source is;

Pap, Miklós; Székely, László; Vitéz, András (1964). Budapest; a Guide to the Capital of Hungary. Budapest: Corvina Press. p. 160.

"At present a statue of Beethoven by János Horvay (1932), and the statue of the “Tyrolese Sharpshooter" by Zsigmond Kisfaludi Strobl (1940), ornament the park" (snippet view).

October 11

Were Ba'athist parties generally led by minorities?

I found it interesting that the Iraqi Ba'ath Party was led by the Sunni Arab Saddam Hussein and that the Syrian Ba'ath Party was led by the Alawite Assad family, with both Saddam Hussein and the Assad family belonging to minority groups in Iraq and Syria, respectively. This made me wonder--were Ba'athist parties in other countries also led by members of minority groups? Or was this something that was unique to the Ba'ath Party in Iraq and Syria--and, if so, why exactly? Futurist110 (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This might have something to do with a frequent colonialist tactic of placing local administrative power (under the overall control of the colonisers) in the hands of a minority ethnicity within the territory concerned, so that they would enforce the colonisers' laws in order to protect their own position (and lives). I'm sure there is a term for this, but I don't know what it is. Both Syria and Iraq in their modern forms were of course created, somewhat artificially, by European powers in the earlier half of the 20th century following the enforced breakup of the Ottoman Empire. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.162.83 (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)In a multi-party state the members of one party usually are a minority. I think one would also need to look at the respective sizes of the different parties. In Syria, Hafez al-Assad "organised state services along sectarian lines (the Sunnis became the heads of political institutions, while the Alawites took control of the military, intelligence, and security apparatuses)." Any information on why al-Assad put the military, specifically, under the control of his own sect? 2A00:23C6:2403:E900:A9B0:FBB2:63AF:F685 (talk) 10:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because he was a strong-arm dictator, and such leaders need the military to support their authoritarian rule? --Jayron 32 13:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ba'athist parties are not particularly Islamic in nature. They are secularist Arab nationalist and Pan-Arabic parties. While the leadership of those parties may or may not be adherents to any particular branch of Islam, the parties themselves are not particularly religious in nature, certainly not much more than American political parties are Christian in nature; in the sense that there's a tacit endorsement of Islam as a broad faith, but not in terms of being theological in outlook. This is evident by the fact that The Alawites are a Shi'a-based sect, while the Iraqi Ba'athists are Sunni. The Jordanian Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party descends from the Iraqi party, and Jordan is majority Sunni. The Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party - Lebanon Region descends from the Syrian branch, and Lebanon is as close to a pluri-religious society as one can get (it is basically split into almost perfect thirds with Christians, Sunni, and Shia, along with a small number of Druze). The fact that the Syrian and Iraqi branches are led by members of minority religious groups in their countries is basically coincidence. There is no greater pattern to this, because the group is not particularly religious, as I noted. They are primarily concerned with a particular brand of Pan-Arabism. --Jayron 32 14:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron, have you ever considered that minorities might be more attracted to secular parties because it takes the focus away from ethnic and/or religious issues? Futurist110 (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My considerations are not relevant to this discussion. --Jayron 32 13:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of the founders of the Ba`th party, Michel Aflaq, was Christian (as was George Antonius, the intellectual father of modern Arab nationalism), but Ba`thism has never been particularly Christian, as far as I'm aware -- and when Aflaq died, the Saddam regime circulated a dubious story that he'd undergone a deathbed conversion to Islam. Also, Saddam Hussein is not a "minority" in any usual sense, since he was a Sunnis, and Sunnis were always the most powerful group in Iraq down to 2003 (even though demographics were slowly turning against them)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunni Arabs were, what, 20% of Iraq's total population back in 2003? Futurist110 (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I said "Sunnis", not "Sunni Arabs". In any case Saddam is not comparable with the Assad dynasty, since he came from a traditionally overall privileged and powerful group (though not from the ruling class), while the Assads came from an originally semi-obscure group who traditionally were often not even considered to be "real" Muslims... AnonMoos (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Galloway

I have stumbled across a video on youtube entitled "George Galloway: Are you a racist", but I am unable to link to this as youtube is apparently on the wikipedia blacklist. Anyhow, Mr Galloway explains how he spent several years fighting appartheit in South Africa. Now having read his bio on wikipedia (linked above) it seems to be fairly complete and all time periods appear to be covered and I can't see any mention nor time gap allowing for his claimed activities. Mr Galloway is also notoriously not a good source of reliable information. Can someone please confirm if he did indeed take part in fighting the old regime in South Africa. Thanks. -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:6884:6200:31B5:87EF:F8F6:BB70 (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's apartheid. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube is not on any Wikipedia black list. The Youtu.be link shortening service is, as with most link shortening services even if this one can only (AFAIK) be used for links to Youtube. If you use the share function in Youtube, this will often provide the Youtu.be shortened URL, but if you copy the URL in a browser, this should be the full Youtube.com URL. Nil Einne (talk) 10:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the video you are referring to [16] although I have not viewed it. Nil Einne (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I called up YouTube on my browser and the first suggestion which came up was "George Galloway vs the US Senate (FULL TESTIMONY)" [17]. I wonder why. I went on to type the name of the video mentioned by the OP into the search bar and it brought up quite a few videos on the same subject. 2A00:23C6:2403:E900:A9B0:FBB2:63AF:F685 (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found [18] from Galloway which provides more info on what he said he did. I read the English Wikipedia article George Galloway and don't see that it describes everything he did during his life. Running for elections is not generally a full time job, even serving in executive positions on political parties may not be, especially if they are subdivisions. BTW, our article also mentions his response to that question, as well as a response published in the Times of Israel. That response says "I suppose we'll just have to take him at his word on that one." so seems to suggest some doubt, but also not something which was definitely known to be incorrect. Nil Einne (talk) 11:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the YouTube video of Galloway responding to the question, during a debate at The Oxford Union in October 2013 (mentioned in the article), whether he is a racist, he refers (at 5:14-5:20) to "the decades that [he] worked against apartheid in South Africa". That does not imply he spent decades in South Africa; I read this as Galloway saying he worked for decades against apartheid-in-South-Africa. He does say (at 1:25-1:44) that he "travelled the length and breadth of apartheid South Africa as an underground agent of the African National Congress led by Nelson Mandela, then in Pollsmoor Prison in Cape Town". That was then in the years 1982-1988. --Lambiam 11:49, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Galloway is, like many on the British left, opposed to Zionism, a standpoint that can lead to allegations of anti-Semitism. See George Galloway sacked by talkRADIO over allegedly anti-Semitic tweet (June 2019). Alansplodge (talk) 12:05, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very few British politicians who get into trouble over Israel / Jewish issues have done nothing other than criticizing Israeli government policies. The great majority of them want Israel to be wiped off the map, to start with, and many of them would have no particular problems if this wiping off the map were to be accomplished by means of force and violence. Many of them have been carried away by their enthusiasm on this issue to utter loose and inflammatory declarations which have been found unacceptable by almost all the UK Jewish community (always excluding JVL, of course), and by many others in the UK as well. George Galloway refuses to talk with, meet with, or sit on the same platform as Jewish Israelis, among other things. Ken Livingstone indulged himself in loose and inaccurate analogies to Adolf Hitler (which was the latest of many other offenses on his part). Jeremy Corbyn rejected the IHRA definition of antisemitism because he thought that people in the UK Labour party should be able to accuse all those who oppose Israel being wiped off the map as "racists", and still remain party members in good standing... AnonMoos (talk) 13:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Reference desk is not a place for opinions or debate. --Lambiam 17:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 12

alcohol and artificially sweetened drinks

according to this helpful guideline for healthy beverages is there any or no specific alcoholic drinks or artificially sweetened drinks they are saying are ok or bad to include if you want to be healthy diet and lifestyle wise? https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-drinks-full-story/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.151.63.111 (talk) 11:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both alcohol and sweetened drinks are mentioned in that article. It uses slightly different terms, such as "calorically sweetened drinks" for basically sugar and "non-calorically sweetened drinks" for artificial sweetener. There's a graphic of a pitcher that lists recommendations for daily consumption of those items. In general, if you read that article, or any guidance at all anywhere from every reliable source, alcohol and sweetened beverages are NOT required for a healthy diet, and if you choose to consume them for pleasure, you should do so in very limited amounts as they introduce a variety of negative health concerns. --Jayron 32 13:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think most experts now say that the less alcohol one consumes, the better it is for your health. Not that long ago the consensus seemed to be that one alcohol consumption a day was better for healthy adults than none, so I cannot predict what they'll say a decade from now. Also, the sugar intake of the average health-savvy American is still too high; much of it comes from the high-fructose syrup added to almost everything (bread, soups, sauces), so not adding to that through your drinks may be best. Artificial sweeteners appear to also be quite unhealthy, based on statistical data. --Lambiam 16:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's usually a misinterpretation of what the consensus is on the matter. There's some evidence that some alcoholic drinks (red wine is often floated as an example) are less bad than others because they contain nutrients that may provide some health benefit, but what news sources and pop-sci reviews of this often gloss over is that those nutrients are able to be obtained in other foodstuffs (like eating the grapes instead!) without the deleterious effects of the alcohol. Alcohol itself is not recommended in any amounts, but insofar as people are going to drink, the health-minded imbiber is often advised to choose less bad options. --Jayron 32 17:29, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's an accurate summary. There was a considerable body of opinion that alcohol itself was protective against some sorts of cardiac events. That may still be true; the problem is that you have to balance it out against other risks. --Trovatore (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 13

Why do the Netherlands, Germany and Sweden have such a large mean wealth per adult to median wealth per adult?

The table on List_of_countries_by_wealth_per_adult shows that, whereas most countries have a mean-wealth-per-adult to median-wealth-per-adult ratio of between 2 and 4, these countries have ratios of over 6:

 COUNTRY      	MEDIAN	   MEAN	 RATIO
 Germany      	35,313	216,654	 6.135
 Thailand     	 3,526	 21,853	 6.198
 Sweden       	41,582	265,260	 6.379
 United States	65,904	432,365	 6.561
 Ukraine      	 1,223	  8,792	 7.189
 Russia       	 3,683	 27,381	 7.434
 Netherlands  	31,057	279,077	 8.986

The USA and Russia have reputations for having large inequalities, but why do countries with high Human Development Indices such as Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands have such large values, in particular the Netherlands, far above all others?

P.S. Why are Ukraine's values so low, comparable to those of least developed countries?

Thanks,
@Cmglee: τaʟκ 00:54, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is a very accurate measure of overall societal inequality; it would probably be better to use something devised for the purpose, such as the Gini coefficient... AnonMoos (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AnonMoos. I don't claim that it's a measure of inequality, but wonder what causes the means and medians to be so different compared to other countries. Any ideas? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 11:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the gap between the mean and median of any set of averages indicates that there is a small sample size which has a very large value. In each of these cases, it means that the richest people are individually VERY rich, even if there aren't many of them. --Jayron 32 18:02, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Sweden, billionaires are surprisingly popular - The land of ABBA and Ikea has high wealth inequality. Alansplodge (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assassinating Vladimir Lenin before 1917?

Just how easy would it have been to assassinate Vladimir Lenin in Switzerland before 1917? Also, what would the penalty for Lenin's assassin have been? Futurist110 (talk) 07:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you can expect a referenced answer to that, but if you had suitable weaponry at your disposal and were willing to be immediately apprehended and executed, then I would say dead easy. If not, not so easy.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:55, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article, between 1879 and 1941 only certain cantons in Switzerland (the article doesn't say which ones) had capital punishment, so the risk of execution would have depended on where one carried out the assassination. Proteus (Talk) 12:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who was Presiding Officer of the United States Senate on 19 July 2007?

According to our article, it was Dick Cheney. However, this speech by Senator Robert Byrd is addressed to "Madame President". Was Robert Byrd going senile? Was he trolling Dick Cheney? Was there a female Presiding Officer of the United States Senate that has been erased from history? Enquiring minds want to know. Kaldari (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite common for the VP to take a day (or longer) off, perhaps to attend official functions out of the country. In such cases, a deputy is appointed to fill the role. DOR (HK) (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, in modern times the Vice President rarely presides over the Senate, only doing so when it's expected they may need to cast a tie-breaking vote or on special occasions. This is mentioned in our article with a link to this source [19] (check the Vice-Presidential Duties section). The President pro tempore has the right to preside in their steed, but this isn't a temporary position since 1890. In modern times the oldest senator from the party with the Senate majoriy is appointed to this position, although unlike the non-temporary part, this isn't something even written in the rules, just tradition. [20] But, and this is something I didn't know until now, the President Pro Tempore (who was Byrd himself at the time) doesn't actual preside over the Senate much either. Instead they appoint/name someone else, [21] evidently normally a junior senator who is the one who mostly presides. This is mentioned in our article, which also explicitly mentions that the list doesn't include such people. As RudolfRed said I'm sure you can find it somewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to [22] which is from 2008 so probably reflects how things were during 2007 "As a result, the duties of presiding officer are routinely filled by a rotation of junior and first-term Senators of the majority party who preside for approximately one hour at a time." So no surprise our article doesn't try to cover such people. One thing I was going to mention but didn't because wasn't sure if it mattered but it seems it does, the person the President Pro-Tempore names can themselves name someone else, hence how this rotation can happen. And it seems likely you'll need to know what time Byrd's speech was to work out although it's possible there was only one female in rotation on that day this being the US Senate in 2007. Nil Einne (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can check the Congressional_Record for that covers that day. Perhaps it will have the detail of who was presiding over the Senate. RudolfRed (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the record for that date [23]. The presiding officer at the time was Mrs Amy Klobuchar. 95.151.24.100 (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 14

Beaverbrook, Lloyd George, and signposts

Our article David Lloyd George includes a quotation from Beaverbrook - "There were no signposts to guide Lloyd George". Unfortunately it is not sourced. Instances of it on Google appear all to be cribs from our article. Can anyone help find the source? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another covid 19 question

I'm not sure if this question can be answered but here goes: America has over 210,000 deaths related to covid 19. America has 10 times the population of Canada but more than 20 times the number of covid 19 related deaths. Canada's approach to covid was very different than America (as was other countries). If America had followed the same processes as other nations (i.e. masks, social distancing, etc), is there any way to guestimate how many Americans would have died under those conditions? 142.46.150.122 (talk) 14:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]