Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

November 12

Balance of power in US Senate for 2021

There is much talk of the "balance of power" in the US Senate (for 2021) resting on the results of two Georgia senatorial elections (or run-offs). Why does Georgia have two senators facing election in the same year? I thought that the Senate was divided into 3 classes (Class A, B, C ... or Class 1, 2, 3) ... such that both senators from any given state are in a different class and, therefore, in a different election cycle. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

That is normally the case, but one of the races is a special election to replace a senator who resigned. See 2020 United States Senate special election in Georgia. --Khajidha (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I looked at that. So, they are having both a regular election and a special election at the same time. For the winner of the special election ... do they get a 6-year term? Or do they just "finish up" the balance of the retiring guy's term? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Finish up the balance of the term. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The same will apply to whoever is appointed to fill Kamala Harris's senate seat. That person will only serve out of the balance of the term and not a full six years. RudolfRed (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

For full details see Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. --47.152.93.24 (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Circassians: Italian and Russian language sources help request

Greetings,

1) While working on Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları (Ottoman women slave markets) I came across Circassians related following 1592 AD quote of Lorenzo Bernardo, Venetian Ambassador in a self published source. But I guess that would be available in Italian or Russian language alternate sources, can some one help out making it available

"...Turkey is bordering with Adyghas and Mingrelians, who represent something like slave mine, whom they take to Constantinople like cattle and sell them in auctions..." By Lorenzo Bernardo, Venetian Ambassador 1592 AD

2) There are three Scholarly research in Russian language by scholars of Circasain descent. I am looking for help in some gist from following which may be used in Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları or Circassians

• • Emilia Sheudzhen’s “The Adygs (Circassians) in Historical Memory” (Moscow and Maikop, 2010),
  • Fatima Ozova’s “Studies on the Political History of Circassia” (Pyatigorsk and Cherkessk, 2013),
  • and Marina Khakuasheva’s “In Search of Lost Meaning” (Nalchik, 2013).

3) While Circassians women slavery in Ottoman empire is lot eulogised, Own Circassians women voices seem to be scant. I am looking for Circassians women's folklore or folk songs which might be covering slavery issues.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

References

As to item 1, I suspect the original report from the Venetian ambassador is contained in: E. Alberi, Relazione degli Ambasciatori veneti al Senato, Series III,^[1] a multi-volume work that only major or specialized libraries would have. Your best chance may be to ask the author for his source. I think the Circassian Benevolent Association should be able to assist in establishing a contact, if the author is still alive – he should be 93 now and the Russian Wikipedia only gives a birth year for him, and last year he was awarded the 2019 CRO Lifetime Achievement Award,^[2] but as a literary prize in his name has recently been established,^[3] I am not so sure.  --Lambiam 17:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Greetings @ User:Lambiam, I came across similarly matching Italian wording snippet "...Nella relazione sull ' Impero ottomano dell ' ambasciatore veneziano Lorenzo Bernardo , del 1592 , si dice che la Turchia confina con i Circassi e i Mingreli che « si offrono come miniera per l ' estrazione degli schiavi , poiché si preoccupano..." @ Lorenzo Bernardo "Miscellanea di studi storici, 2. (Collana Storica di Fonti e Studi, 38.) Genoa: Istituto di Medievistica, Università di Genova, 1983. This seems to be journal. I am not sure if this can be used as reliable source, any ways I will try to confirm original source too if possible. Thanks and very nice support of you. Warm regards Bookku (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

That passage with a quote of ambassador Bernardo is indeed sourced to Alberi, as I suspected, and specifically to p. 388 (no indication of the volume, but perhaps they are numbered consecutively). This is from an article in a serious scholarly publication, published under the auspices of an institute of history at a university, so I think it can be used as a reliable source. The full reference to the article is: E. S. Zevakin and A. Penčko, "Ricerche sulla storia delle colonie genovesi nel Caucaso occidentale nei secoli XIII-XV", translated from the Russian by Maria Teresa Dellacasa, in Miscellanea di studi storici, vol. 1, (Genoa: Fratelli Bozzi, 1969), pp. 7–98. It is not clear whether this should be considered a journal; it is more like a series of books, since volume 2 only appeared in 1983. The full text of the relevant passage, which occurs on p. 41, is: "Nella relazione sull'Impero ottomano dell'ambasciatore veneziano Lorenzo Bernardo, del 1592, si dice che la Turchia confina con i Circassi e i Mingreli che « si offrono come miniera per l ' estrazione degli schiavi, poiché si preoccupano di guadagnarsi la vita trasportando gli schiavi a Costantinopoli a guisa di bestiame e vendendoli sulla pubblica piazza »." Translation (credit to Google Translate): "In the 1592 report on the Ottoman Empire by the Venetian ambassador Lorenzo Bernardo, it is said that Turkey borders on the Circassians and the Mingrelis who 'offer themselves as a mine for the extraction of slaves, since they are concerned about earning a living by transporting slaves in Constantinople in the guise of cattle and selling them on the public square'." I have not investigated whether the Russian text of the article has been published as such.  --Lambiam 12:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@ User:Lambiam Many thanks for your valuable proactive and informative support. Thanks again and regards Bookku (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

What publisher does 'Typis Caroli Georgi Univ. Typogr.' refer to?

I'm currently looking at this book, a doctoral thesis published in Latin in 1876 at the University of Bonn. A quick Google search reveals many other works whose publishing is attributed to Typis Caroli Georgi Univ. Typogr. What publisher does this Latin name refer to? ~★ nmaia ^d 10:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

There was a "Carl Georgi Universitäts-Buchdruckerei" in Bonn [4], serving as the local academic publisher for Bonn University. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

For the meaning of the Latin term typis, see here, sense 5.2. Caroli Georgi, Universitatis typographi means "of Carl Georgi, printer of the University"; "Carolus" is the Latinization of the German name "Carl", and "the University" is the University of Bonn (see the word "Bonnae" one line up). So together it means "From the printery of Carl Georgi, printer of the University of Bonn".  --Lambiam 19:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it was printed by Charles George of Bonn, but published by a... Frederica Wilhelma University of the Rhein? Temerarius (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's the University of Bonn's official name, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität (our article has a bit more info about the background of that name.) But the university isn't technically the publisher here, it's just where it was submitted as a PhD thesis. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Fredericius Guilelmius is a Latinized adjective corresponding to the name "Friedrich Wilhelm". It has feminine endings here because it is governed by Universitas, which is feminine in Latin (like all words ending in -itas).  --Lambiam 20:32, 12 November 2020‎ (UTC)

Who was "Colonel Sir Charles Waterhouse"?

Our article George Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston mentions a Sir Charles Waterhouse as involved in the shenanigans over the succession to Bonar Law. The source given, Mosley, Leonard (1961). Curzon: The End of an Epoch. pp. 264–275. calls him Colonel Sir Charles Waterhouse, and says he was Personal Private Secretary to Law. The only google hit I get for "Colonel Sir Charles Waterhouse" is the Mosley work. Now, there was a Captain the Rt Hon Charles Waterhouse, but he was neither a colonel nor a knight. Was he the person Mosley meant? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Bonar's PPS in the early 1920s was Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Ronald Dockray Waterhouse (1878-1942). MilborneOne (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: Many thanks - he's in Who Was Who, Waterhouse (2008). "Waterhouse, Lt-Col Sir Ronald". Who's Who. A & C Black. doi:10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U233166. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |othernames= ignored (help) (Subscription or UK public library membership required.) which confirms that. He ought to have an article here IMO. Now, what to do about our use of Mosley? Our reliable source is obviously unreliable on this point! DuncanHill (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I would correct the name in the article but add a footnote describing the difference from the original text. Alansplodge (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

This source gets the first name of Law's private secretary right but explicitly absolves Stamfordham from having conveyed Davidson's memorandum to the King. The full passage is:

"Davidson appraised Curzon and Baldwin in a long memorandum, stating chiefly that in this democratic age it would seem advisable for a prime minister to be in the House of Commons. Did Davidson deliver this to Stamfordham or to the King? He did not. The memorandum, of which Law knew nothing, together with Law's letter of resignation, were conveyed to the King by Colonel Ronald Waterhouse, Law's principal private secretary."

The discrepancy with Mosley thus extends quite a bit beyond Waterhouse's first name. A more complicated story, in which Waterhouse delivers Law's resignation letter to the King but leaves the anti-Curzon memorandum he allegedly co-wrote with Davidson with Stamfordham, is found here in a richly sourced source; the source given for that particular statement is "Dawson diary, June 17 1923 in Wrench, p. 219",^[5] where "Wrench" refers to: John Evelyn Wrench (1955), Geoffrey Dawson and Our Times. Other sources have yet other versions; there is Davidson's Memoirs of a Conservative (too involved to be necessarily reliable), and secondary sources may be preferable, but they too can get it wrong. This source even makes Waterhouse Baldwin's "own Private Secretary".  --Lambiam 08:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh what a tangled web they weave! Waterhouse was Baldwin's PPS when Baldwin was PM, according to Who's Who. DuncanHill (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Electoral College in the 2020 elections

In a nutshell, why Biden was declared the winner of the elections and president-elect before the Electoral College vote on December 14? Especially since there were elections in which the winner lost the popular vote. Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Why was Trump declared the winner in early November 2016?[6] Why was Obama declared the victor in early November 2012[7] and 2008?[8] Clarityfiend (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "declared". He hasn't been declared the winner in any legally binding sense. Not all the states have even "certified" their results yet, and challenges post-certification are possible (as happened in 2000). But barring very unlikely scenarios, it's clear that Biden will get more than 270 electoral votes on December 14, and various news organizations have taken notice of that fact, which is all it means to say that they have "declared" him the winner. --Trovatore (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Quite simply because the most likely result based on the unofficial vote totals is that a majority of EC electors will be pledged to vote for Biden, which all but guarantees he will be elected President. The practice of calling someone President-Elect before the EC meets, and even granting that person special resources to establish a transition team, more or less makes it clear that the person who appears to have the most pledged electoral votes within a few days of the election will win the presidency. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

According to the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, passed in the aftermath of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the head of the General Services Administration has the authority to ascertain the likely winner based on projections from decision desks of reliable media sources. This is a legal finding that grants the incoming president-elect with significant government resources and guaranteed access to the top leadership of every federal agency. In every presidential election since then, with the exception of the long contested 2000 Bush/Gore election, the authorization has been issued promptly when all major media decision desks have projected a winner. Only the Trump administration has failed to ascertain a winner, and has blocked the president-elect from accessing the resources guaranteed by law. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, if the Biden campaign’s entitlement to these resources is so clear it’s surprising he hasn’t sought mandamus relief from the courts yet, if only to protect the peacefulness and effectiveness of the transition of power. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

It may be to Biden's political advantage to take no legal action and instead let Trump make a fool of himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

That would be outrageous. If Biden is entitled to those resources then his willful refusal to seek them through legal process is to hamstring his own transition. Letting Trump “make a fool of himself” to the detriment of the Republic is frightening. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Fighting outrage with outrage doesn't necessarily work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

If Trump and his administration are already ignoring the legal requirements, what makes you think they would respect any legal process Biden were to pursue? --Khajidha (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks like Klain, Biden's chief of staff, will be the point man on any litigation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Surprisingly for America, it isn't a matter for the courts (yet). The law provides certain funds and access for the presidential transition, but the definition -- when the successor is acknowledged as President-elect -- only kicks in when the Electoral College (or, if necessary House of Representatives) votes. If the incumbent wishes, as have all normal presidents in recent history, he may gracefully facilitate the transition by playing nice. DOR (HK) (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, there's no entitlement to those transition resources. It's a discretionary matter. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the date is NOT the electoral college vote. The date defined by the law is "the day following the date of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2," and states "The terms "President-elect" and "Vice-President-elect" as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2." This is straight from the text of PL 88-277, the law in question (bold mine). The Administrator of the General Services Administration, in this case Emily W. Murphy, is supposed to begin the process. She has, as yet, refused to acknowledge Biden as the winner, so technically she's the one holding things up. But the date for the transition is determined by law to be the day following the completion of the general election to determine the electors, i.e. November 4. --Jayron32 17:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• Technically, Biden should be referred to as “President Presumptive” (or some similar term) until he is officially elected by the electoral college (which will occur on December 14th). Yes, this is pedantic, but doing would help people understand the process. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  That would be a neologism created for this election. They are always referred to as the President-elect as soon as the election is mathematically known. --Jayron32 17:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I will concede that I was suggesting a neologism, but not that I created it for this election (I made the same argument in 2016, and in 2008). The point is that, every 4 years, there is a period of about a month (between the general election in November and the meeting of the Electoral College in December) when we presume who WILL be elected the next President even though his or her election has not yet taken place. We need a more accurate way to describe this. Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

It's standard usage. What confuses you about it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

On 9 November 2008 Blueboar referred to Barack Obama as "President Elect."[9][10].95.145.0.52 (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There's discussion at Talk:Joe Biden. The example given is "The Olympics is scheduled to begin in August 2020" v "The Olympics will begin in August 2020". I don't think editors are obliged to take account of black swan events which are most unlikely to happen. 95.145.0.52 (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking back through Newspapers.com, the term "president-elect" has been used in this way since at least the Polk election of 1844. Random other instances: Lincoln in 1860, McKinley in 1896, FDR in 1932, Eisenhower in 1952 and JFK in 1960. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump's lawyer doesn't like it but it's actually quite dangerous to not stick to the advice of the 9/11 commission and postpone the transition. Count Iblis (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

And do you think that, if the boot were on the other foot, his lawyer would be having even the tiniest doubts about the result? Americans love winners, and they respect gracious losers. Petulant losers with nothing to offer but their petulancy and narcissism and vacuous threats of legal action, well, they're another story. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Some Americans seem to like people, though, who keep fighting against all odds.  --Lambiam 12:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Weirdly, Sly Stallone was born on the same day as George W. Bush. Anyone who can't see a conspiracy there just doesn't have their eyes open. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It's obvious they were switched at birth. (Who you gonna believe: an anonymous Internet guy or your lying, lying eyes?) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You can't hide them. Maybe you should try disguising them, thinly, with a smile. --Trovatore (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

What did the 9/11 commission recommend not postponing?? —Tamfang (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

November 13

Significant demographic changes in Russia between 1897 and the start of World War I?

Other than seeing significant growing in its total population, did any significant demographic changes occur in Russia between the 1897 Imperial Russian Census and the start of World War I in August 1914? Imperial Russia planned to hold another census in December 1915, but this plan got cancelled due to World War I breaking out 1.5 years earlier--specifically in July 1914. However, do we have any other data and/or information that would allow us to see if anything in Russia's demographics was significantly different in 1913-1914 than it was back in 1897? Futurist110 (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

No change in Russian Poland. Poland was partitioned before 1897 and was reconstituted after World War I. No change in Finland. Finland was annexed before 1897 and declared independence during World War I.
Sleigh (talk) 02:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

The southern half of Sakhalin island was ceded to Japan (with a population of 406,557 in 1941 including immigrants from Korea).
Sleigh (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Yep. Anyway, though, I was thinking more in terms of migration here. Futurist110 (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

"Russia's population growth rate from 1850 to 1910 was the fastest of all the major powers except for the United States". [11]. Alansplodge (talk) 09:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Also Russia's Growing Population which says that Russians married young and bred like proverbial rabbits.

Thanks for that article! Futurist110 (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Migration seems to have been going in the opposite direction due to the pogroms in the Russian Empire.

Alansplodge (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

For Jews specifically. Not necessarily for non-Jewish Russian ethnic groups. Futurist110 (talk) 21:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

See Pogroms in the Russian Empire. DOR (HK) (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Why Chips?

Our article says that Henry Channon acquired the nickname "Chips" at Oxford. Why Chips? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

According to this, it's because he once shared a house with someone nicknamed "Fish". Clarityfiend (talk) 20:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Here's a better source. (Read it quick, before the subscription screen appears.) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Clarityfiend: Thank you. Now... who was Fish? DuncanHill (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Compelling visually evidence it's this guy. A couple more theories, pun on "ships", brought potato chips to a cocktail party[12]. fiveby(zero) 02:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Potato chips??? In Oxford? Chips are made from potato, certainly; but they're something you serve at table, not something you bring to a cocktail party. (Yes, I do know). --ColinFine (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The Great Migration and an increase in crime in Northern US cities?

Did the Great Migration of African-Americans to the Northern US (and, to a lesser extent, the Western US) cause an increase (especially a large increase) in crime in Northern US cities? I know that in the present-day US there is a large correlation between an area's black percentage and its crime rate:

https://www.unz.com/runz/race-and-crime-in-america/

Thoughts? Futurist110 (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I am sure there was an increase in reports of crime and crime statistics and arrests as southern blacks began to run into white sheriffs up north. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 21:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that crime statistics weren't recorded in the Southern US, or what? Futurist110 (talk) 22:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Do you suppose there are any stats about the crimes committed by white immigrants against native Americans? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Against native Americans or against Native Americans? Futurist110 (talk) 02:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Native Americans ARE native Americans. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

You mean to say that in the American Indian Wars the U.S. Army fought against its own people?  --Lambiam 11:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

But very far from the only ones! Futurist110 (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Fun fact: "native Americans" are twice as likely to commit crimes as "illegal aliens"[13], while "Native Americans" appear to be even more likely, but nobody can tell for sure.[14] 93.136.22.169 (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

This just shows the problem of naming people or things and also being correct or polite."Native American" is correct but imprecise. "Red Indian" was incorrect on two accounts. "Indian" is wrong. "Amerindian" may be better. I have only seen this in South American contexts. "Aboriginal" is probably insulting and implies Australia in British minds. "First nation(al)" may be better. I have only seen it used in Canadian contexts (it includes Inuit as well I think.) There may be other terms. What else could one use.Spinney Hill (talk) 10:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

How about "the people who were already here". That covers most any immigration scenario. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

How about "the people"? (Does imprecise labelling of people ever achieve anything positive?) HiLo48 (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Motion to collapse the above disruptive/off-topic tangent. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 13:19, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

• Aw, how sweet. Making a racist argument, perhaps ignorantly, citing Ron Unz, and his white supremacist, racist, holocaust denial, antisemitic website. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, the Unz Review has also sometimes argued against the conventional alt-right narrative, such as here: https://www.unz.com/runz/the-myth-of-hispanic-crime/ -- and here: https://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-holocaust-in-the-ussr/ But, in any case, if Ron Unz's race and crime data in that article is wrong, it would certainly be nice to see where exactly it is wrong. Futurist110 (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

(ec)There is no lack of literature that would inform on this topic as simple searches show. If you are serious you might follow references in this Harvard working paper. My "thoughts" are that there are more appropriate and informative places to look than Unz Review. fiveby(zero) 16:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll check it out! Futurist110 (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Large-scale migration tends to cause reports of increases in crime for several reasons. First, larger populations have more crime. Second, people without established homes, jobs, or other connections to a community may be more likely to commit crimes. Third, many people seek to blame society's ills on those who are not local, i.e., migrants. It's a well-established form of bigotry. DOR (HK) (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC) .

November 14

Is the existence of Santa Claus disputed?

I thought it was an undisputed fact that Santa Claus does not exist. Is this not true? Félix An (talk) 21:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It might depend on how you define "Santa Claus". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Virginia; see Saint Nicholas, for example. --107.15.157.44 (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

November 15

In what sense was the Second Mexican Empire an empire?

Didn't the Second Mexican Empire just supplant an earlier unitary republic in its own territory? It seems to me that would make it more like a kingdom than an empire. --Trovatore (talk) 03:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

As Empire notes, the narrow definition is a state ruled by an emperor. Maximilian I of Mexico styled himself an emperor. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Declaring Mexico to be a mere kingdom would have been interpreted as a tacit admission that Mexico was not at the same level as Brazil (an empire since 1822)... AnonMoos (talk) 08:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

A state can name itself whatever it wants (more accurately, people who are in charge of running a state can call it whatever they want). What made it an empire is that the people in charge called it that, and called the ruler of said state an Emperor. --Jayron32 12:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The Second Mexican Empire was a creation of the French and their Emperor of the time Napoleon III. Maximilian modelled himself on Napoleon III and no doubt wished to call himself as Emperor as a result. The French had invaded and the resulting state was the creation of conquest-like the Roman Empire of the past and the Turkish and Russian Empires of the time even thougfh unlike them it covered only one country. France of course had an overseas empire (in Africa and the West Indies) and was expanding it in Africa and into South East Asia. This empire existed when France was a Kingdom and when it became a republic in 1848. When I saw this question I assumed the "First" Mexican Empire meant the pre-Cortes Empire that was defeated by Cortes and the Spanish in the sixteenth century but I checked the Wikipedia articles and discovered Mexico had briefly had an emperor in the 1820s and this may have been another reason why Maximilian called himself Emperor and not King. In the 1820s Mexico did cover a larger area than in 1862 including California, New Mexico and Texas but that wasn't because of Mexican conquest but was land inherited from Spain and the Mexicans were there before the USA.There are and have been other single countries whose heads of state are or were styled or referred to as Emperor- Japan and formerly Iran and Ethiopia immediately come to mind. As recently as 1976 the President of the Central African Republic declared himself Emperor and lasted a such for nearly three years. That Republic had been part of the French Empire and French history may have influenced those events. Napoleon III had been President of France.Spinney Hill (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Help deciphering an artwork on a shirt.

I have been looking for more info on this design. I keep seeing it online and am not sure what it is. Can someone explain this? https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/gu3yylbt6rcag7h/a2dec.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.253.181.100 (talk) 07:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It is, reportedly, "A reticle used on the Trijicon RMR sight in Rainbow Six: Siege."^[15] I guess the "Trijicon RMR" is a weapon that can be used in Rainbow Six: Siege.

Sadurmelickh , Who is this Tartar woman?

Sadurmelickh, a Tartar woman, appears in a travel account (available online @ gutenberg.org/files) of a German Johann Schiltberger who escaped from Ottomans. Johann Schiltberger's account claims to have eyewitnessed a successful revenge with 4000 women soldiers against some Tartar king's brother.

Even if we consider 4000 number may be exaggerated and if we consider if any moderate number of 100 to 400 still conducting a successful militaristic adventure would be notable enough.

Whether historians have any success in identifying Tatar king and the woman in question. If any one gets any encyclopedic information with ref at any point of time please do share / update in @ Draft:Women, conflict and conflict zones

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

We may safely assume that Schiltberger's claims are not always trustworthy; see the discussion here, pages 346–348, in which the Travels are called "the Bavarian child's Robinson Crusoe", and it is said of Schiltberger himself that "he knows no myths", describing all kinds of imaginative curiosities as events he personally witnessed. Even if the Sadurmelik account is not manufactured out of whole cloth, it is likely based on a local myth, and attempts to identify the king involved or his cousin will surely prove futile.  --Lambiam 12:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@ User talk:Lambiam, Yes, It seems to be unfortunate likely case of myth making and fiction in supposed to be non fiction book. May be case mishandled collation of manuscript probably we will never know. When I browsed translation of Schiltberger account with search on keyword slave I felt his account is not giving enough info on topic, and info on culture of female slavery seems largely missing. Bookku (talk) 03:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Connotations of "Orient" and "oriental"

Hey,

From what I can tell, the word oriental/Oriental is considered by some Asians to be offensive. Is the same true of "the Orient"? Ovinus (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The term Oriental is only considered offensive when used to describe a person. I don't think any offensive will be caused by calling Turkish tobacco "Oriental tobacco". So no, "the Orient" is just fine (unless one somehow manages to give it a racial connotation by using the term metonymically for the collective of people of Asian descent). What may be problematic is that the term has a strongly context-dependent meaning; the Orient of the Orient Express is a very different Orient from that of Orient Group Incorporation.

It would take a brave man to say that any term was inoffensive in all circumstances. Joe Biden got into trouble in 2014 for talking about "the Orient", and in some academic circles it's been treated as potentially offensive for the past twenty years. --Antiquary (talk) 12:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Who decided it was offensive, and why? <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 16:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Edward Said deliberately and intentionally contrived to create an asymmetrical situation in which Middle-Easterners have every right to criticize Western societies, but Westerners are perceived as having no right to criticize Middle-Eastern societies, and he had a certain degree of success in achieving this cynical Machiavellian goal -- a striking degree of success in certain corners of academia. Part of Said's malicious manipulative plan was to use the word "orientalism" as a weapon, applying it to everything he personally disliked, and to silence opposing voices. AnonMoos (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

He did not create the asymmetrical situation whereby Western societies colonized and mistreated middle-easterners. That already happened, and he had nothing to do with it. --Jayron32 12:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

When I was on law review in law school I raised this as an issue with the editor in chief when an author referred to some clothing fashion popular in Europe something like a century ago as Oriental. The consensus of the editorial staff was that it wasn't a problem. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It was decided that "Asiatic" was offensive and it was replaced by "Asian". I can't for the life of me see why, any more than I can see why the term "near east" has been replaced by "middle east". 2A00:23C5:D10F:E000:EDD0:893B:E7E3:B62 (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I dunno. The Asiatic Barred Zone? Calling people Asiatic instead of Asian sounds like "racialists" who say negroid, caucasoid, mediterraneanid, baltid, dalmatic race etc. a lot. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

In my mother language the cognate of "Asiatic" is used to mean someone of an Asian ethnicity/Asian phenotype (eye skin folds etc.), while the cognate of "Asian" means someone who is literally living in Asia or was born in Asia (in the same sense as "American", "British" etc.). You could say that calling by phenotype/ethnicity is racist and remove that word, but then again people want to identify as Asian American or African American etc., and you'd have no words for that. 93.136.52.233 (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

They mean slightly different things, as described in here and in the lead to that article. Because of my background in archaeology, I always had a slightly different view on it anyway (detailed here). Matt Deres (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

To someone based in London, the Dutch province of Zeeland should be the Near East.  --Lambiam 21:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

And Zealand is far, far, far south, east, west, north, southeast, southwest, northeast, northwest and underneath; at that distance it hardly matters which way you go. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Orient comes from the Latin "oriens" which simply meant "the east." The opposite was "occidens" which meant "the west" "Oriental " is a much more common word in English than "Occidental" although the latter does exist. Both words are perhaps more poetic both in English and French. The Orient Express was a train running from Paris to Istanbul (Turkey but still in Europe.) The British I think referred to India as well as China and Japan as "Oriental" and it maybe that the word is thought offensive because it lumps all three together as one and also because it got coupled in public minds with " wily" "devious" or even "devillish." I feel a little sympathy with the above contributor (timed at 1756) and Bugs. Even "Asian" is sometimes used with intent to cause offence. Wikipedians outside Britain may not have heard of a profesional football (i.e.soccer) club called Leyton Orient. They were originally called Orient FC later Clapton Orient later Leyton Orient, then Orient again and now with the "Leyton" restored. According to Wikipedia "Orient" may be named after the Peninsular and Orient steamship line (P&O) but Clapton and Leyton are both districts of East London. I am sure their supporters treat being called the Orient as a matter of pride and not offence. From USA of course it is quicker to go west to reach China than to go east so Americans may have lost the "eastern" aspect of the word.Spinney Hill (talk) 18:45, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The question would be what term, if not "oriental", is acceptable to refer to the natives of countries including China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and so on. "Asian" is being used that way, but it's not very accurate. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 20:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Why should one need such a term? What do people in Japan and Laos have in common? There is no term for the Western Hemispherians, or the Tropicians, or for the Zeans (the natives of Zambia and Zimbabwe).  --Lambiam 21:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

"Western Hemisphere" doesn't mean much in England because a third of the country is in the Eastern Hemisphere. I grew up living in one hemisphere but walking to school in the other. Alansplodge (talk) 08:48, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

East Asia is a very useful term. If "Orient" has a vague indeterminate meaning larger than East Asia but smaller than Asia as a whole, then it might not be so useful... AnonMoos (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, East Asian is much clearer, as it pretty well covers the area I described. As to what they have in common, it would be cultural. And as to why anyone would "need" such a term, keep in mind that language evolves from what people want, not from what some almighty power decides. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

East Asian is much clearer, but very rarely used outside quite formal discussions. And let's be honest, when most people in the US or my country, Australia, describe someone as Asian or East Asian, they mean someone with slanty eyes. It's a politically correct word that came into use after the Vietnam War to replace the many pejorative terms that had been used up to that time and which had proliferated during that war. I can remember Gooks, Slopes, Charlie, and Slants. Users of the term East Asian typically have no precise idea of the ancestral background of people they describe that way. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I guess the police have a legitimate interest in describing wanted persons as clearly as they can. "A person of Asian appearance" covers a lot of ground, but equally it eliminates a great deal of other ground. If that's all they have to go on, I don't know what other term they might use. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You'd think so, but it turns out that police departments that use broad racial categorizations (as opposed to individualized descriptions of suspects) are far more likely to use racial profiling in inappropriate ways (i.e. to unequally harass people who belong to those broad racial categories) and to unequally arrest, charge, and incarcerate people from those racial groups for minor offenses (they get arrested for things that people of other ethnic groups don't, when arrested, they get charged with crimes that arrested people from other ethnic groups don't, and they get incarcerated for the same crimes that people of other ethnic groups are charged with). See Here for example. Basically, using broad racial categorizations in policing does not result in better identification of suspected, but it does result in unequal enforcement of laws, and disparities in imprisonment of racial minorities compared to people in the majority ethnic group. --Jayron32 16:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

What I'm getting at is, if they are told the person they're after "looked Chinese", that is something they can use to narrow down the range of suspects. They know that "looked Chinese" could mean the person is Chinese or Japanese or Vietnamese or Lao or various other nationalities, so it'd be best not to limit it to Chinese. Maybe they'd say "East Asian" in appearance, to distinguish them from South Asian. There's nothing racist about using such a characteristic to help locate a potentially dangerous person. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. You may be interested in the IC codes used by police in the UK in a vain attempt to avoid accusations of this sort. BTW, "IC 4 Asian" refers to people originating from the Indian Subcontinent, who greatly outnumber any other Asian ethnicity in this country (see British Asian). Alansplodge (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes. As a devotee of the much-missed The Bill, I was aware of IC-1 males, IC-4 females etc. It took me a while to work out what the codes meant, as they were never explained in the show. Are schoolkids routinely taught these codes? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. Alansplodge (talk) 09:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Nancy Joe at Quiberon?

This is a bit of a long shot! I have in my head a phrase half-remembered from a book read in childhood. The phrase is "Nancy Joe at Quiberon" and the book would have been read in the 70's of the last century. "Nancy Joe" was, as best I can recall, a sailor's mangling of the name of a ship, or perhaps a captain (much like Billy Ruffian for HMS Bellerophon), and Quiberon would presumably be the Battle of Quiberon Bay. I've got a feeling it was used as an example of courage or good seamanship or suchlike. So - can anyone identify the ship or the book? I don't think it was a Hornblower. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

This the one? It would only cost you £1.50 + p&p to find out for sure. --Antiquary (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC) If so, the ship in question would be HMS Vincejo (1799), known as Vincey Joe, captured by the French at Quiberon Bay in 1804. --Antiquary (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Antiquary: You're good! Definitely right about the ship, and Showell Styles rang a bell. Looking at that page I'm certain I read some of the Midshipman Quinn books, and Vincey Joe at Quiberon looks like I would have read that if I'd had the chance. I'll get a copy. Many thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Education

Hi guys, I'm not sure whether this is the right desk to ask this, but... if someone had a degree in English Education and they wanted to become a lawyer in the United States, what should they do? I assume law school is the next step, but how long would the whole process take? Are there any special degrees they have to get? Pardon my poor English. Thanks. Miss Bono ^{[hello, hello!]} 16:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

@Miss Bono: In all (or mostly all?) states in the U.S., you need a Juris Doctor degree from an accredited law school. This normally takes three years, but can also be done in two or four depending on the school. After that, you need to take the Bar Exam to be admitted to the state's Bar Association and then you can practice law. RudolfRed (talk) 17:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See Law school in the United States. 2A00:23C5:D10F:E000:EDD0:893B:E7E3:B62 (talk) 17:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

As the Law school in the United States article states, law school for JD, then pass the bar exam is most common but being America, 50 states means more than 50 systems. One state does not require the exam if you attend one of their state law schools (and a few others have temporarily suspended the requirement during CoVID). Several do not require law school or a JD but do require the bar exam. One state requires two different bar exams for some students. Rmhermen (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Miss Bono. The first step is for the aspiring lawyer to get a high score on the Law School Admission Test, commonly called the LSAT. There are commercial test preparation services. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Also remember that lawyers don't practice in the United States, they practice in a particular state. Passing the bar in Maine may not have any bearing on practicing law in Louisiana. One would have to determine which states (if any) have reciprocity agreements with the state in which you initially pass the bar. --Khajidha (talk) 18:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

If you are still looking for a new username, perhaps Cui Bono?  --Lambiam 13:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I have a friend who made his living as the lead singer in a U2 tribute band. He was a pro Bono. --Jayron32 15:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the answers! They were really helpful. Miss Bono

On the off chance it wasn't clearly and plainly answered: If you have a bachelor's degree you just have to take the LSAT and apply to a JD program at any ABA-accredited law school. There are a few that don't require the LSAT but almost all the ones worth attending do. And yes, there are a few special cases where you don't have to go to an ABA-accredited law school, but I recommend against that. If you must work full-time, there are many law schools with evening programs. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 04:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Also one more thing: If you're from a country other than the USA or Canada, it may be easier, and certainly cheaper, for you to stay in your current country and get a bachelor of laws (LLB) degree and then come to the US for a one-year master of laws (LLM) which will enable you to sit for the bar exam in any state. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

November 17

5 year trial delay for train attack

The suspects in the 2015 Thalys train attack have just gone on trial 5 years later.[16] I did a double take when I saw the news article because that incident was far enough in the past that I thought the legal aspects would have been long since wound down by now. Why such a long delay? Was there anything terribly complicated about it? Do the suspects have platoons of white shoe lawyers filing motions all day long to delay things like Exxon might have after a big oil spill? It didn't really seem like that kind of operation. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:25EB:282F:5576:C543 (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Pending the response of someone with real knowledge of the trial and surrounding legal matters, I would observe that the train journey in question traversed three separate countries, and the perpetrator, victims and other active participants in the event (let alone any passive witnesses who might be called, and also the train's owners) span at least half-a-dozen different nationalities, all of whose legal authorities (plus those of the EU itself) might have interests and demands relating to the case, with some of them making their own preliminary investigations. The co-ordination of all these individuals, authorities and organisations is likely not a trivial undertaking. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.26.5 (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

In a jury trial (which this is), the prosecution wants to avoid any possibility that the defense can spring a surprise and introduce previously unknown exculpatory evidence. This means they will strive to obtain testimony from all people who may have witnessed parts of the events as they unfolded – that is, in this case, basically all train passengers.  --Lambiam 11:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

for the first claim. Neither the English or the French source used in our article (and the English source in our article is the same as above) says anything about a jury that I saw, and I couldn't find any suggestion there is one. (From what I can tell, jury is jury in french too. Juror is jurée or juré depending on gender.) Our article Cour d'assises mentions that terrorism charges are generally tried before a special Cour d'assises which only has panel of judges, and the source claims one of the charges is attempted terrorism murder. Various French sources like [17] [18] support the notion it's before a "Cour d'assises spéciale". (There are some English sources, but these look like crappy machine translated likely copyvios from French sources.)

There are even some sources like [19] which mention stuff like "composée de magistrats professionnels et non d'un jury populaire. Le verdict devrait être rendu le 18 décembre." (I.E. the French sources I did find which mentioned a jury seemed to suggest there was none.)

Note that France has an Inquisitorial system and so (other) judges can be involved in investigating cases. This is mostly for serious cases, but this seems to be one, and I found sources suggesting that did happen for this case e.g. [20] [21]. (Those sources suggest that the inquisitorial part may have taken at least a year, since there's one from late 2016, and another from 2018 which mentions something which happened in November last year i.e. 2018.)

Various sources like [22] [23] suggest France has come under criticism from the ECHR for their lengthy delays, although the first sources suggests a more normal delay is 18 months for the trial to start. Given the effect the COVID-19 pandemic has had, you can maybe treat this trial like it happened in April which admittedly doesn't help that much.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The title "Lawyer Says Film '15:17 To Paris' Would Prejudice Train Attack Jury" of this news item put me on the wrong foot. I had seen a news report that the prosecution intended to have Clint Eastwood heard as a witness and assumed, without checking, that El-Khazzani's lawyer's objection was related to this. It remains likely, though, that during the investigation the prosecution, just like the defence, did not know that the trial would eventually be held without a jury, and therefore sought to cover all potential holes.  --Lambiam 12:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Criminal cases are trivial to delay, even low-profile ones. In the United States, I've seen cases get continued a half dozen times without any objection, at the request of the accused's lawyers. In fact, today it's almost always the accused's lawyers or legal situation slowing things down nowadays. Five years may seem like a lot, but this being a high-profile terrorism case on an international conveyance, my expectation were it to have happened in the United States is that the lawyers for the accused would be throwing many, many procedural roadblocks in the way of a trial and at each individual charge. As to the French legal system, I'm not as sure, but I wouldn't be surprised if the same sorts of procedural wrangling (perhaps with a more continental flavor) would be routine. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Media calling the US election results

(Yet another US election question): watching the US election from the other side of the Pond, one thing that seemed rather odd to me was that apparently it is down to the media to "call" the results is each state (with UK media such as the BBC and Guardian waiting on US media to get the results, and sometimes reporting differently if they were getting it from different sources). The Guardian "explained" that this was because elections are run by the states, and there isn't a single Federal organisation in charge. But that doesn't explain why they don't get the results from an official State source. What is the reason for this? Iapetus (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

"Calling" a state is just a prediction. The official determination comes from the states. --Khajidha (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

If you live in a country where officials are chosen by a popular election, you will probably see that the TV channels call the winner before the official determination. For example, Sky News proclaimed Sadiq Khan the winner of the 2016 London mayoral election on Friday 6 May 2016 18:34, local time.^[24] The official determination was announced on Saturday 7 May 00:30, almost six hours later. In the US, each state can set its own rules for how and when the vote counts become official; the only hard deadline is that the state's set of electors must be fixed on Monday, December 14, when they cast their votes. Ballotpedia has a list of how and when election results are finalized in each state. California takes its time, setting December 11 as the date. Somewhat understandably, the media do not wait that long.  --Lambiam 12:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It isn't "down to the media" to call results. What the media does is report true things (or at least do the best to report those things to the highest accuracy possible). For example, if a candidate is ahead in a race by more votes than have not yet been counted, then it is not mathematically possible for that candidate to lose, so the state has been won, even if the vote count isn't finished. When a media organization "calls" a race, it means that they, to the best of their ability, have noticed that math is a thing, and said "wow, look at this math thing that happened. Well, I guess because math is real, this election, even though there are some votes left to be counted, is really over regardless". That's what the media does. Sometimes, candidates and their supporters, who don't believe math is a thing, refuse to accept this. That's all that is happening here. --Jayron32 12:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

This is complicated by mail-in votes and early voting, as these totals may be tracked separately and counting may not have even been started on election day. In many states, mail in ballots could not (by law) be counted until the day after election day. Media sources may not have any clue how many such ballots were sent out, let alone how many were returned. And, depending on the state, mail in ballots may be allowed to be counted even if they arrive after the official election day, as long as they were sent by election day and received within a designated time. Where I live (NC), ballots received by the 12th were valid, as long as they were postmarked by the 3rd. --Khajidha (talk) 13:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is all true, but the OP asked why the media was treated as some sort of official sanctioning body for the elections. It isn't. The media merely reports on what has already happened, so when the media says something like "California is being projected for Joe Biden", what they mean is "Even though the counting isn't done, it isn't mathematically possible for Donald Trump to win California". Even though the official counting may not be certified by the State of California for several days afterwards, they may "call" a state before that time when it becomes certain that a candidate has won said state. This is not "official" in any sense, but that isn't what matters. In all elections in all countries, the media will report likely winners before the official election results are in; as noted this is normal practice in the UK, where the media will state who won an election earlier than the official announcement. --Jayron32 13:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, different news sources make their own individual "calls". Using "the media" as a singular mass noun tends to obscure that fact. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, only two major bodies exist to provide projections: the National Election Pool (an independent meta-conglomerate consortium of three of our major news-media conglomerates operated by a third-party company), and the Associated Press (a different, independent special-purpose organization of the meta-conglomerate wire service operated by a third-party university group). If you received election-week updates from any television channel or internet-website-not-ending-in-.gov (on any portion of the political-spectrum), you were almost certainly receiving information originally sourced from these two special-purpose conglomerates, whose aggregate sourcing, projections-from-government-officials, and other methods, are all described on their own respective websites, NEP and AP.

Though a handful of other micro-outlets may use other projection methodologies, those outlets are so non-noteworthy that it's fair to call them "cranks."

Nimur (talk) 19:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

(EC) I think two things which confuses a lot of people outside the US may be the way preliminary results are handled along with a continuous and slow (for some places) count of results. In a lot of states it seems to be a confusing mess with a lack of an official tally for that state. Nil Einne (talk) 13:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

To give a specific example, see Talk:2020 United States presidential election#Note: Arizona has been called. Why was the Secretary of State just randomly reporting somewhere that they counted all votes? Why wasn't there some website you could go to see the official preliminary results with a 100% count? I'm sure it makes sense to Americans or at least Arizonans, but I think for many of us outside the US, not so much..... Note that this specific example illustrates why such an approach can lead to confusion. I had a look, but never figured out where the Secretary of State had made said report, was it a tweet, a press conference or what? Nor did I figure out what those 100% count results were. Relying on the media didn't work either. IIRC, even 4 hours after this supposedly happened, many of the media didn't seem to know. I think by that time because the overall election had already been won by Biden and it was also several days after and very early morning, a lot of the media didn't have major people working so it took a long while for this news to filter through. Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Comparing with NZ to explain why the US seems to confusing Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

By way of comparison, NZ had an election a few weeks before the US. Preliminary results of the 2020 New Zealand general election were published as they came in on an official government website with all such results completed in I think ~8 hours of the voting finishing except for the two referenda. (These did take a while although the date for their preliminary results was advertised well in advance.) The media could also collect results themselves if they wanted to but the official preliminary results meant you didn't have to rely on them. The preliminary results included the projected winners for each seat, along with projections of numbers of list seats. The preliminary results included ordinary votes and advance (ordinary) votes, but not any special votes. Special votes included all postal votes (as NZ appeared to have COVID-19 under control, there was far less concern about voting in person although more people did advance vote in part to avoid crowds since we didn't have hour long queues), people voting from outside their electorate (even advanced votes) and some other cases like people voting from prison or hospital. [25] After the preliminary results were published, there was no further update of results until the final results. (To be fair, as I mentioned a few weeks ago, this does require some degree of trust especially with a reasonable number of uncounted votes. If you someone is leading by 2% and starts losing with the final results because there were a large number of uncounted votes, this could generate suspicion. A slow and steady count results over time makes it easier to see what was happening.) This time around, there was only limited interest in what could change with the final results, since the results on nearly all fronts, even electorates, were clear enough. (Although that obviously relied on media etc projections.) There were some minor unknowns e.g. will the Māori Party manage to bring another list MP, but mostly it was clear there wasn't going to be any major changes. (Notably for the two referenda, which were intended to be semi-binding, the one to legalise cannabis was close but still far enough that it was clear it wasn't going to change. The one to legalise euthanasia was so clear you didn't really need the media.) The lack of interest isn't always the case. Notably in 1999, the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand were out of parliament based on provisional results [26], but ended up both gaining an electorate seat and passing the 5% threshold. And other coalition possibilities were uncertain without final results. As postal or other special votes increase, there is a risk of greater uncertainty between preliminary and final results. This time around it was about 17% [27]. I could imagine some change if postal votes continue to increase. Note that NZ local elections (see e.g. 2019 New Zealand local elections) have been all postal for a while (check the archives, I published a researched date before), but preliminary results are published on polling day. Even the health boards which use Single Transferable Vote are I think at most a day late. Although this does rely on computerised counting and I think all use a commercial company so may not be an option for some places. (There's also no signature checking or anything like that.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)|} Yes, but in New Zealand, are they allowed to open the envelopes and start counting votes before election day? In many U.S. states this year that had newly-expanded mail-in-ballot systems, the law is written so that mail in vote counting is not allowed to begin (that is, officials cannot even begin counting votes) until election day itself. That is why it takes some time to count them. Someone has to physically open millions of envelopes and count the ballots. That takes time, and the results of that process, in a state where the election is closely divided, may not be mathematically certain for quite some days. --Jayron32 14:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

"NZ had an election a few weeks before the US." In a sense, the US didn't have an election. The 50 states and DC each had elections that were coordinated. Many questions of "why the US does this" or "why doesn't the US do this" really miss the point. --Khajidha (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, this is kind of tying up over a bit of legal-ese fine print. The laws everywhere in the United States require local officials to legally certify the election. In many places, the local official is permitted some amount of time to check their paperwork prior to putting any official's signature on paper.

As our system of government delegates this process to state and county (local) officials, the number of days allowed to fill in that paperwork can vary from place to place.

The proverbial "race" to call an election is because the private-sector is tallying up all the things that have already finished being formally certified, and when possible, assuring that any as-yet-uncertified result could not plausibly change the result.

One reason that various media outlets differ in their "call" is that they retain editorial control over the definition of what is "plausible" in the as-yet-unofficial results. This level of uncertainty can vary between "mathematically impossible" to "astronomically unlikely" to "likelihood of an editorial embarrassment in a few days."

If you are really interested in the microdetails for one particular example: one of our American news outlets - the PBS News Hour - has been regularly airing the details of the official in the state of Georgia. He has tried, while maintaining the decorum of a licensed attorney, to explain the basic facts of addition to a frequently hostile and often confused press.

As a mathematically-inclined engineer, I think I would summarize it in this manner: the method that lawyers use to ascertain truth is very very different than the method used by scientists and engineers and mathematicians. In the end, the truth can't be changed - but we can have totally different ways of ascertaining it. For the lawyers, it is very important to have the right forms filed, to have the signatures in the right place, and triplicate-copies of paperwork with chains-of-evidentiary-custody, and compliance with the extremum-interpretations of the legal mandates.

A concrete example: the votes have all been counted. One part of the law in the state of Georgia (O.C.G.A. § 21-2-384) provides a legal requirement with the phrase "as soon as possible." Another part of the law (O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386) provides a legal requirement with the phrase "As soon as practicable after 7:00 A.M. on the day of the ...election." Another part of the law (O.C.G.A. § 21-2-498) explains how the State will conduct audits (pre-certification) so that they know the answer before the local official signs the form with that particular legal-ese, and that these "risk-limiting audits" must occur "as soon as possible", ... and so on, and so on. I mean, yesterday alone, (November 17, 2020), the Secretary of State of Georgia spent over an hour explaining this over, and over, and over again, to the unwashed masses, trying to explain over, and over, and over, how this shall not, cannot, mathematically provably will not change the outcome - but that legally the process has not completed until everyone "gets their stuff done." (Those were his exact words). And how long do they all have to "get their stuff done?" Well, ... they have to do it "as soon as practical...", so that (O.C.G.A. § 21-2-499) "the Governor shall certify the slates of presidential electors no later than 5:00 P.M. on the eighteenth day following the date on which such election was conducted...." except that "such times may be altered for just cause by an order of a judge of superior court of this state." So, ... what deadline do they exactly need to meet, legally, even though everyone already knows the mathematical factual outcome?

He actually "can't" say that the result is certified (at the time of this writing), because he is a lawyer, and a public official, and the paperwork isn't finished yet. And if you watch in gory detail, he also explains that there will be a mandatory recount, and that also shall not, cannot, mathematically provably will not change the outcome, but that legally it must be done because it is required in the State of Georgia.

At what point in the development of modern society did we all decide to put lawyers in charge? I think it was the exact moment when a majority of the society determined that allowing idiots to fight their stupid battles in suits was preferable to allowing idiots to fight their stupid battles with gun-battles....

Nimur (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

"The New Way" Series, Liberal pamphlets

I have recently come into possession of a copy of Muir, Ramsay (1923). The New Liberalism. "The New Way" Series. Vol. 1. London: The Daily News Ltd.. From the back cover I see that further volumes included:

• 2 Layton, W. T. The Budget of 1933.
• 3 Brand, R. H. Why I am not a Socialist.
• 4 Simon, E. D. Houses for All.
• 5 Clay, Henry. Property and Inheritance.
• 6 Robertson, D. H. The Ebb and Flow of Unemployment.

and I know that No. 7 was Insurance for All and Everything by William Beveridge.

The pamphlets were based on papers read at the Liberal Summer Schools. According to Starr, Joseph R. (August 1937). "Foreign Governments and Politics: The Summer Schools and Other Educational Activities of the British Liberal Party". The American Political Science Review. 31 (4). American Political Science Association: 703–719. doi:10.2307/1948108. JSTOR 1948108. fifteen pamphlets were issued in the four years from 1923. (While Layton's The Budget of 1933 was a "look into the future", the title confuses some cataloguers who assume it must have been published in 1933 or later). The publisher, The Daily News, was a leading Liberal paper of the time.

I would be grateful for a complete list of the series. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The British Library Catalogue gives me these eight, bringing the total to, as Mr Starr says, fifteen.

• Sir Frederick Barton Maurice Disarmament (1924)
• Philip Guedalla A Council of Industry (1924)
• Arnold Duncan McNair, Baron McNair The Problem of the Coal Mines (1924)
• James Scorgie Meston, Baron Meston India and the Empire (1924)
• Waldorf Astor, Viscount Astor Temperance and Politics (1925)
• Sir Douglas Henderson Inheritance and Inequality. A Practical Proposal (1926)
• James Scorgie Meston, Baron Meston Drink (1926)
• Philip Henry Kerr, Marquis of Lothian The Industrial Dilemma (1926)

--Antiquary (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

And looking for each of the titles on Library Hub Discover I find the numbering of the pamphlets is: 8 McNair, 9 Maurice, 10 Meston India, 11 Guedalla, 12 Astor, 13 Meston Drink, 14 Kerr, 15 Henderson. --Antiquary (talk) 17:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

{{re|Antiquary|Thanks again! Largely the sort of names I was expecting to see, tho' I must admit I wasn't expecting to see Maurice contributing. DuncanHill (talk) 18:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

DuncanHill your ping didn't work and while Antiquary will probably see your thanks I'll add this ping to make sure :-) MarnetteD|Talk 21:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Au contraire, MarnetteD, most things escape my vigilance. --Antiquary (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Makes me happier that I added the ping Antiquary :-) MarnetteD|Talk 22:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm only seeing snippet views on books, but:

• No. 2
• No. 3 archive
• No. 4
• No. 5 Hathitrust
• No. 6 Hathitrust[28]
• No. 7 Hathitrust
• No. 8

if you can see Hathitrust (or geo-relocate your ip to the U.S.). fiveby(zero) 02:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Can't find Maurice Disarmament, but here's a 1922 Oxford Lecture in "International Disarmament" in Essays in Liberalism. fiveby(zero) 03:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

@Fiveby: Many thanks. I can't view the Hathi Trust scans, but the others are very useful. The article in Essays in Liberalism may well be the same as the "New Way" booklet, as Essays is a collection of papers from the Summer Schools. DuncanHill (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

November 18

What is "Virgo Garnru"?

I inherited a silver pendant with the engraving of 2 people with 7 stars above their heads, and a creature lying at their feet that looks like a baby. The words 'Virgo Garnru ' are engraved on it. I can not find any information about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.105.54 (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

It sounds like a Catholic devotional medal. Could it be "Virgo Carmeli"? This means Our Lady of Mount Carmel. You can see some Virgo Carmeli medals here: [29] and more in a Google image search. These medals have two figures (Mary and Jesus) with stars above their heads, and often a vaguely cloud-shaped ground under their feet. If the medal were worn, "CARMELI" could become difficult to read and perhaps look like "GARNRU". I believe (but I'm not sure) that some people who wear these medals touch or grasp them often, which would wear down the lettering and figures. --Amble (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

November 19

Why did the US take over the Danish West Indies but not any other Caribbean islands other than Puerto Rico?

Why did the US take over the Danish West Indies (later renamed the US Virgin Islands) but not any other Caribbean islands other than Puerto Rico (which AFAIK the US acquired as a result of its victory in the Spanish-American War as opposed to any conscious effort/attempt to acquire it on the US's part)? As in, what exactly made the Danish West Indies so special in a way that none of the other Caribbean islands were? Futurist110 (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

From the article:

The United States had been interested in the islands since at least the 1860s. The United States finally acted in 1917 because of the islands' strategic position near the approach to the Panama Canal and because of a fear that Germany might seize them to use as U-boat bases during World War I.

--174.95.161.129 (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Did no other Caribbean island(s) hold any strategic value? Futurist110 (talk) 08:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

You might think that Denmark's limited ability to fight back was a factor, but I couldn't possibly comment. Alansplodge (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)