Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 December 14

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 14

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

There may have been a good question and a reasonable answer here. The thread has been hijacked by people who feel it is more important to scream angrily at people they disagree with over this rather contentious issue. I'm shutting this down as it has become a magnet for conflict and not to provide references for the OP to read. Next time, please don't do that, so the person asking the question can get the reading material they are seeking. --Jayron32 15:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why exactly did the Trump Peace Plan allow Israel to keep control over and annex the Dead Sea Valley? Futurist110 (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC) You're speaking of it in the past tense. Are you assuming it will die once Trump leaves office? <-Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots-> 21:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Maybe, maybe not. It might get revived under a future Republican US President. Futurist110 (talk) 04:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Futurist110 -- Settlements in many areas of the West Bank were established by Israeli right-wingers encouraged by the Likud government which came to power in 1977 (while many "settlements" right against the Green Line were established as pure real-estate speculations), but settlements along the Jordan Valley were established by the socialist Israeli Labor Party before 1977... AnonMoos (talk) 23:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC) Why did the Israeli Labor Party do this? Futurist110 (talk) 04:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Shall we get back to Futurist 110's question ?. Thats why I deleted a paragraph The agreement will last until the US changes its mind and informs Israel. Since it seems to be basically what Israel wants they won't repudiate it and Palestine did not agree to it in the first place. I'd like to know why Mr Trump proposed or agreed to this as well. In fact there are lots of things about his actions I would like to know the reasons for.Spinney Hill (talk) 14:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Spinney Hill (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Wigglesworth & Wigglesworth

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

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

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

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

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

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

At least one geneology website thinks they are brothers: [1] lists them both as the children of George and Mary Wigglesworth, who married about 1890. I know that's not citable but can anyone use those names to find something more solid? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Thai cuisine

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

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

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

(edit conflict) "Lunch usually includes quick dishes like noodle soups, fried noodles, rice dishes and curries" [2]

"Lunch is generally eaten between 12:00noon and 1:300pm. Many people eat out, grabbing a quick meal or snack such as a bowl of noodles, some soup or a stir-fried dish. A typical Thai lunch is curried chicken or stir-fried vegetables with rice, noodles or soup". [3]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Britons getting assistance from MPs

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

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

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

Hi Nyttend, re your second question, here is what one Sein Fein MP says on his website: Paul is renowned for being a hard working MP who is easily accessible on the ground in West Belfast with his constituency office providing an excellent service to the people of the area.[4]70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

- 81.170.84.128 17:49, 14 December 2020

Yes, I thought some elucidation might be required and subsequently, the OP has thanked me for my edit, so perhaps I wasn't stating the obvious. Alansplodge (talk) 15:32, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

This [5] refers to "advising Members and staff to work remotely where possible and limiting all but essential access to the parliamentary estate" and makes reference to Members who are "not able to attend the Chamber". If you go to the enquiry desk and ask to speak to your MP a message will be put through if she is in the building but it's entirely up to her whether she sees you or not. 2.31.65.57 (talk) 19:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

"In the UK, do people often make such requests of their legislators, and do legislators often provide this kind of service?" It depends entirely on the individual MP. Some are very conscientious, and approach their Membership as their main job. Such individuals (in normal times) have weekly 'surgeries' and treat their constituents with respect. Others, such as my MP, Geoffrey Clifton-Brown have better things to do (such as running a farming business) and with the safest of safe Tory seats he has little cause to worry about his 58% majority. None of my emails to him have even received an acknowledgement, let alone anything resembling an answer. MinorProphet (talk) 11:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, some MPs rely on their diligence for re-election. It is not unknown for voters to go against their party allegiance and vote for an effective representative. An example is Bob Russell (British politician) who was re-elected twice in Conservative-minded Colchester when his own Liberal Democrat party was in the doldrums. Alansplodge (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Democrats nominate:

Smith Brown Jones Adams

Republicans nominate:

Monroe Anders Blair O'Donnell

The ballot:

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

Pick one

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

I had assumed it was like this:

The Democrats nominate Smith and Brown for Maine's electors

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

The Democrats nominate Adams for District 2 elector

District 1 ballot:

Smith+Brown+Jones (D)

Monroe+Anders+Blair (R)

and the rest

Pick one triplet

District 2 ballot:

Smith+Brown+Adams (D)

etc.

pick one triplet

2 different but partly overlapping elections, 1 checkbox

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

What? No. You're making this out to be WAY more complicated than it is. The people gather somewhere in the state capital vote twice: once each for President and Vice President, sign some papers and go home. It's not that complicated. Once the voting is done, each state sends two certificates to Congress to be unsealed and officially entered into the record: There is a "Certificate of Ascertainment" that just lists the names of the electors from that state (again, the electors are not assigned to any specific district, just a list of names of people who have the right to vote for President/Vice President) and a "Certificate of Vote" which contains a list of names and the number of votes they received for President and Vice President. The electors sign the Certificate of Vote, but no specific votes are assigned to any electors, the slate of electors just certifies the total votes by signing the certificate. The actual "vote" itself varies from state-to-state, but it needn't be more complicated than writing a name on a piece of paper, and in most cases it isn't. There may be an official "ballot" of some sort serving as that paper, with pretty caligraphy and stuff, but there isn't a "check box" or a list of "candidates" or anything. The electors just write the name of their vote on the paper, and give it back. Then someone counts the votes up, writes the totals on the Certificate of Vote, everyone signs it, they seal it in an envelope and mail it to Congress. Congress opens these envelopes in a joint meeting on January 6 to open and count the Electoral votes. See here. --Jayron32 20:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

I was talking about the November ballot where you mark which president you want and sometimes "electors for" is above Trump's, Biden's etc's' names (maybe they don't even name them in some or all small states though they have room), in Maine you would be voting in 2 partly overlapping elections with the same vote. But you're right it doesn't have to be complicated they could just say "electors for Trump" "electors for Biden" on the ballot without giving any details, figure out if it's 4-0, 3-1, 1-3 or 0-4 then make a paper with 4 authorized names of the appropriate amount from each parties' 4 names. Youze on the list youze get to hand in a paper that says Trump or Biden on Dec 14. I guess I still don't know if it's always this fungible but I suppose it's such a trivial thing as they all just get smooshed together into 51 papers that say Trump x Biden y long before the January count anyway. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Many states don't even list electors OR even pretend that electors exist; I have been a legal resident of, and voted in, two U.S. states in my life, three elections in New Hampshire (one presidential, two off-year, all absentee; I was in college and Grad school) and at least 20-30 in North Carolina (in person, including every Presidential election since 2000 inclusive) and I've never even seen the mention of electors on a ballot. They just say the names of the ticket in large letters, and the party they represent in smaller letters underneath, or alongside of. If you really wanted to know what the ballots looked like (as opposed to just asking questions in an obfuscated manner so that other people have to struggle with answering them), AFAIK every state publishes what their ballots look like online. For example here is a sample ballot from Montgomery County, North Carolina, and Here is Lincoln County, Nebraska and here is one from Mississippi's 4th congressional district. You can see in that small sample that Mississippi explains that you are voting for electors (but does not name them) and the other two just put down the names of the presidential candidates. There are 48 left (states + DC) for you to research on your own. You really don't have to involve the rest of us in these musings. Google is not that complicated, I found each of these by typing "XXXX Sample Ballot" into Google, replacing XXXX with the name of the state. --Jayron32 11:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Just to address one aspect of the above, but it is the case that at least some states do ceremonially associate individual human electors with a specific House of Representatives district. Videos available online of the actual Electoral College meetings show this happening in Michigan (each elector is announced as being from a specific district, and one infers is thus notionally representing said district); the 9th district elector was unable to attend and they voted for a replacement, who was also from the 9th district. California goes one step further, in that the extra two electors not associated with a House district are actually associated with a specific Senate seat. In this year's California Electoral College meeting they had to fill several elector vacancies, including one specifically stated as being for the Senate seat of Senator Feinstein. Similarly in Maine, there was one named individual elector for the 1st District, one for the 2nd District, and two at large electors. Of course, designating all electors as being "at large" is also possible, and more details on the electors for each state and whether they were associated with a specific House district can be found at List of 2020 United States presidential electors. 118.211.126.19 (talk) 09:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

So finally an answer, it is in fact done sometimes despite what Jayron claimed and I can look up those ballots to check if common voters see any of this too. But California, Michigan, Nebraska and Maine's voters apparently see even less than my state - not even seeing the "electors for" in front of the name so I'll stop looking here, the fact that some states do specify interchangeable electors in a group as having a connection to single constituencies having already being proven. And the article immediately above shows that more than a few states do this, like Alabama, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky and Louisiana. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The Szekely Land and an extraterritorial road connecting it to Hungary

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

Hungary lost those territories in the Treaty of Trianon. I can find no information about your scenario at all. --Jayron32 16:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

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

One of Lloyd George's criticisms of the Hungarian delegation was that they had failed to make specific proposals concentrating on areas in which Magyars formed the majority, preferring instead to attack the whole principle of the Treaty. He believed that if they had concentrated on Magyar-majority areas on or close to the proposed border they may have had more success. He was concerned that placing significant populations of Magyars in other states would lead to future conflict. See Lloyd George, David (1938). "XX: The New States. 4 - Hungary". The Truth About the Peace Treaties. Vol. II. London: Victor Gollancz Ltd. pp. 962–970.. I believe the French, especially Alexandre Millerand, were particularly opposed to any Hungarian claims, while Britain and Italy were more inclined to be sympathetic. Curzon's role could be questioned too, he was well aware of British concerns and supposed to represent them but promoted a memo by Allen Leeper which (and who) was strongly anti-Magyar. Some discussion of this in Cartledge, Bryan (2009). "8: Paris". Mihály Károlyi and István Bethlen: Hungary. Makers of the Modern World. London: Haus Histories. pp. 91–106. ISBN 9781905791736.. DuncanHill (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. Also, FWIW, the Szekely Land is nowhere near the Hungarian border. Futurist110 (talk) 01:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)