Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 July 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< June 30 << Jun | July | Aug >> July 2 >
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.


July 1[edit]

The lack of Jews in southern Romania before the Holocaust[edit]

A map of Romania's Jewish population in 1930.

Why did northern Romania have much more Jews before the Holocaust than southern Romania had? You can see the map on the right elaborate on what I mean here. In northern Romania in 1930, the Jewish population was astronomically larger than it was in southern Romania (other than Romania's capital Bucharest, of course) during the same time. Why exactly was this the case? Futurist110 (talk) 00:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the northern portion of Romania touched Jewish-populated areas of Poland and Russia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I claim no expertise in the demographics of Romania, but I think that a look at the map and the Jewish demographics of the broader region may provide some clues. Directly north of Romania is Ukraine, a country that had a very large Jewish population in the early 20th century and long before, with Jews constituting 20% to 35% of the population in the major Ukrainian cities and containing countless Jewish villages. To the south of Romania is Bulgaria, which has had a Jewish population for nearly 2000 years but a very small one. In the early 20th century, the population of Bulgaria was only about 0.8% Jewish. Traditional Jews have a very strong preference to live in areas with a Jewish population large enough to support a thriving and vibrant Jewish community with synagogues, Jewish schools, kosher butchers, ritual baths, Jewish newspapers and community centers, and opportunities to get a job. Another factor may have been the chaos that followed World War I and especially the emergence of the Soviet Union which came to control Ukraine and was hostile to organized religion. I know that many Jews fled the Soviet Union for Poland, and it is certainly possible that significant numbers migrated south from Soviet Ukraine to Romania, which was somewhat more friendly to Jews in the 1920s than it had been previously. Also, as a result of border adjustments after World War I, Romania gained much of Bessarabia, Bukovina and Transylvania, regions with significant Jewish populations, according to History of the Jews in Romania. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you say that this is somewhat similar to many Mexican-Americans deciding to settle in the parts of the US that are relatively close to the Mexican border or to many Cuban-Americans deciding to settle in Florida--which is relatively close to Cuba? Futurist110 (talk) 00:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Futurist110, I think that there is a lot of truth to what you say, but on the other hand, modern inexpensive rapid travel is a major factor, and you can find significant Mexican American communities in almost every city and town in the U.S. in 2020. The Cuban Americans are a bit of a special case. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're not mentioning those descended from people who lived in Mexico and then where they were living became part of the U.S. This of course means there was an existing Mexican culture, which also attracted future immigrants. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 04:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly true, but the number of Mexicans and Hispanics who lived in the Southwestern US was actually relatively small in the 19th century. It only began to significantly increase in the 20th century, I believe--first with the Mexican immigration to the US as a result of the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920) and then as a result of mass Mexican and Hispanic immigration to the US in the post-World War II decades, probably accelerating after 1965 or so. Futurist110 (talk) 20:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, IP editor, that much of current California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas was Spanish/Mexican territory for a very long time until Texas independence in 1836 and then the Mexican-American War that resulted in the U.S. taking most of that territory from Mexico. Then there was the Gadsden Purchase. So, those areas were historically hospitable to Mexican occupancy despite widespread anti-Mexican racism by many of the Anglos. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This probably has something to do with the Ottoman Empire, which extended almost as far north as Vienna. Jews and Muslims have never been on particularly good terms, ever since Muhammad's Second Pledge of Aqaba tore up a previous non-aggression pact between the two faiths. 78.145.28.74 (talk) 10:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you suggesting that much more Jews would have settled in southern Romania had this region never actually been under Ottoman rule? Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@78.145.28.74:. You made that up. Jews under the Ottoman regime generally fared better than they did under any Christian region throughout history. History of the Jews in the Ottoman Empire, Millet (Ottoman_Empire)#Jews, History of the Jews under Muslim rule, etc. It certainly wasn't perfect, but on the balance, Muslim states prior to the 20th century tended to treat Jewish people better than Christian states did. The modern animosity between some middle-eastern Muslim-majority states and the Nation of Israel only dates from the 20th century, and is not based in any kind of long history of animosity towards Jewish people in general, prior to the 20th century. --174.109.40.22 (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reference: Have a look at History_of_Romania#Independence_and_Kingdom_of_Romania, which explains the brutal treatment of Jewish people in Romania during the period you mention. In particular, many fled severe oppression in the 40 years before the First World War. In this period, the borders of Romania more of less matched the area outlined with a red line on your map. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Romanian Moldavia still had a sizable number of Jews during this time, though--such as in Iasi. This is evident on this map. Futurist110 (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In Islam, the charging of interest is forbidden (haram), being classed as "usury". Jews are typically portrayed as moneylenders (often at exorbitant rates of interest). I believe the modern banking system originated with Jewish moneylenders in Lombardy. Would this prohibition impact the attractiveness of Muslim lands as a destination? 78.145.28.74 (talk) 15:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Muslim lands had no equivalent. When the Nazis moved in as part of their attack on Russia, some Jews hid in the forest, some fled into the Soviet Union and some stayed where they were. Those who stayed where they were were forced to dig a huge pit. They were then marched to the edge and gunned down. Last to be executed was the leader of the synagogue, who had been forced to watch the entire proceeding. 92.19.172.90 (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who was Henry Clay Bull?[edit]

Bull was a New Yorker chemist. He had business in UK around 1890s: Bull's Iron and Steel (Sheffield) Company Ltd 1883, H C Bull and Company Ltd 1887, Bull's Gold Extraction Company Ltd 1898. He also took multiple patents on steel manufacturing, dynamos, electrowinning etc. But I can not find any more information about him. Does anyone know who he was? An obituary, biography, and photo of Bull will be very helpful. Horus1927 10:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The cokato museum has an exhibit on him here with at least a picture- seems to be a good starting place. You could also consider e-mailing them for more information, it seems likely they would be happy to oblige. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He was born on 29 September 1843 in Jefferson, New York, the son of Alvah Bull and Louisa (nee Packer). He married Minnie Edmonds in 1870, and died on 19 December 1930 in Riverside, California. Findagrave here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a brief biography in this caption for a picture of his house: Library of Congress, Henry C. Bull House, 195 East Third Street, Cokato, Wright County, MN. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Baseball Bugs, can you search Newspapers.com for the obituary, using the death date and location provided by Ghmyrtle? 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding it. Newspapers.com's collection of California papers is not extensive. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, shame, but many thanks for looking. My own paid newspaper archive access doesn't have much US content. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone. But I am not sure. The one I am interested in, moved to UK in 1870s. This Bull married one Florence Cannon in 1871. Later he married Emily Statham in 1882. [1] Horus1927 10:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horus1927 (talk • contribs)

Don't think our Minnesota banker is the subject of the Queen of Great Britain, residing at 15 West Square, Lambeth, London[2]. fiveby(zero) 03:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • inventor of the "Odorless Excavating Apparatus", a device for cleaning privies.
    Clements v. Odorless Excavating Apparatus Co., 109 U.S. 641 (1884)
  • married Florence Cannon, July 1871 in New Orleans, divorced November 8, 1882 New York
  • married Emily Statham August 30, 1884 Liverpool?
  • bankrupt March 21, 1885
    "The Effect of Foreign Divorces in England". Soulby's Ulverston Advertiser and General Intelligencer. 22 April 1886.
  • sentenced to four months internment at Liverpool for libel of Edward Walter Walker
    "News in a Nut-Shell". Acton Gazette. 28 November 1885.
  • At the Liverpool Bankruptcy Court on Monday—before Mr Registrar Bellringer—Mr Henry Clay Bull, the founder of Bull's Iron and Steel company, Bull's Power Company, and Bull's Gas Light and Coke Company, undertakings well known in the commercial world, appeared for public examination. Great interest was shown in the case, and an unusually large number of solicitors were concerned on behalf of creditors. The statement of affairs showed liabilities of £18,495, but no assets were put down, the debtor representing these as contingent upon arrangements that might be made in regard to his patents. Mr Bull said he was an American, and had made many inventions, none of which, however, had proved commercial successes. He believed the processes owned by the companies above named would, however, proved successful; but in appeared, on further examination, that to this end it was necessary that an additional patent of his should be employed, for which he claimed a royalty. The accounts he had kept were of a very meagre description, and he admitted having destroyed letters and papers. He was examined at great length, and upon many subjects he refused to answer questions put to him as to matters of personal conduct, and asserted that he was being insulted. The Court ruled some of the questions out of order. An insinuation being made as to his wife by the solicitor to the Official Receiver, he said he would call that gentleman to account outside the court if the question were pressed within it. The examination was adjourned to the 9th April, an order being made for accounts to be prepared by the debtor.
    "A Lively Bankruptcy Examination". Aberdeen Press and Journal. 18 March 1885.
  • Mr. Ball, the defendant, then handed in a written statement to the effect that on the 23rd September the defendant gave Mr. E. W. Walker, then his private secretary, £250 to pay to Mrs. Clarke...had been divorced from him three years before on her own petition...made inquiry by letter...suspicions were confirmed, and he found that Mrs. Clarke had only received £150, not £250.[Mrs. Clarke must be Florence Cannon remarried?]
    "The Libel by an American Inventor". Liverpool Mercury. 14 August 1885.
  • Claimed to have been a union major and for a time on Grant's staff
    "An Invention in Artillery". Cork Constitution. 31 March 1876. p. 4.
  • charged with murder of Michael Hussey, 32 years of age, born Louisville, KY, inventor by profession, "Major Bull", served as Colonel of the Twenty-eighth Kentucky,short time on General Grant's staff, commissioned colonel by Juarez to fight Maximillian, president of patent arms company and inventor of new motor car
    "The Brooklyn Homicide". The New York Herald. 26 May 1876. p. 7.
  • grand jury did not indict for murder of Hussey, burglary of Chief of Police in Louisville 1869, claimed acquittal for murderous assault on layer New Orleans 1870, wanted by New Orleans police, claimed acquittal for murder of Sheriff Sellwage of Louisville, claimed involved in Republican politics
    "Henry C. Bull's Record". The Sun. New York. 7 June 1876. p. 1.
  • murder of a Mr. Busch in New Orleans
    "A confirmed Criminal". New Orleans Republican. 17 February 1872. p. 2.

Going to quit with the random facts, should be adding to an article instead, tho i wish there was something more than newspaper accounts. Please ping if an article gets started. fiveby(zero) 16:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

just one more: you'd think a major commanding a regiment and on Grant's staff would be easy to find, but the only Henry Bull of the 28th i find mustered as a private 23 Jan. 1862 and deserted 7 Sept. 1863 Pulaski, Tennessee[3]. Not sure this is our inventor. fiveby(zero) 17:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I figured it out. Thanks to you guys. Henry clay bull was born in Louisville, Kentucky in 1844 [1]. He married Florence A. Cannon (1849-?) on 31 July 1871. In 1872, 28 years old Bull left Louisville after he and his brother-in-law Joel Cannon was charged with murder of a Mr. Busch of New Orleans [2]. In 1870, the 26 years old inventor robbed the safe of a Louisville company, and he was caught with the stolen money by a detective [3]. In 1876, 32 year old Bull was living in Brooklyn, and he was charged with murder of Michael Hussey. Bull's brother-in-law Joseph Cannon was a witness. Bull was discharged from the case [4] [5]. May be Bull proved that it was a self defense. Bull then moved to Liverpool where he patented a process to make steel directly from ore. He opened some business in UK, H C Bull and Company Ltd. Incorporated in 1887 [6], Bull's Iron and Steel (Sheffield) Company Ltd. Incorporated in 1883 [7], Bulls Iron and Steel (South Wales) Company Ltd. Incorporated in 1884 [8], Bull's Gold Extraction Company Ltd. Incorporated in 1898 [9]. Bull married Emily Statham August 30, 1884 [10]. Bull was bankrupt March 21, 1885. I could not find his obituary. From 1893-1902 Bull took some patent on methods of gold-extraction-from-seawater [11][12][13][14][15][16]. Horus1927 12:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horus1927 (talk • contribs)

References

  1. ^ https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/GMFF-ZLN
  2. ^ https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83016555/1872-02-17/ed-1/seq-2/#date1=1789&index=17&date2=1963&searchType=advanced&language=&sequence=0&words=Bull+C+Henry&proxdistance=100&state=Louisiana&rows=20&ortext=&proxtext=&phrasetext=henry+c.+bull&andtext=&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1
  3. ^ https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83016555/1872-02-17/ed-1/seq-2/#date1=1789&index=17&date2=1963&searchType=advanced&language=&sequence=0&words=Bull+C+Henry&proxdistance=100&state=Louisiana&rows=20&ortext=&proxtext=&phrasetext=henry+c.+bull&andtext=&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1
  4. ^ https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030272/1876-06-07/ed-1/seq-1/#date1=1789&index=0&rows=20&words=Bull+C+Henry+Inventor&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=&date2=1963&proxtext=%22henry+c.+bull%22+inventor&y=0&x=0&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1
  5. ^ https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030313/1876-05-26/ed-1/seq-7/#date1=1789&index=13&rows=20&words=Bull+C+Henry&searchType=basic&sequence=0&state=&date2=1963&proxtext=%22henry+c.+bull%22&y=0&x=0&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1
  6. ^ https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C4818650
  7. ^ https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C4813450
  8. ^ https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C4814415
  9. ^ https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C4856400
  10. ^ https://books.google.com.bd/books?id=yuZCAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA548&dq=henry+clay+bull,+florence&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjx977Ura7qAhXZF3IKHX0HAn0QuwUwAHoECAIQBg#v=onepage&q=henry%20clay%20bull%2C%20florence&f=false
  11. ^ https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&date=18950828&DB=&locale=en_EP&CC=GB&NR=189410303A&KC=A&ND=4
  12. ^ https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&date=18950921&DB=&locale=en_EP&CC=GB&NR=189418172A&KC=A&ND=4
  13. ^ https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&date=19000716&DB=&locale=en_EP&CC=DK&NR=3227C&KC=C&ND=4
  14. ^ https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=GB137213939&recNum=27&office=&queryString=ALLTXT%3A%28extraction+of+gold+from+seawater%29&prevFilter=&sortOption=Relevance&maxRec=1360
  15. ^ http://www.google.com/patents/US679215
  16. ^ https://worldwide.espacenet.com/publicationDetails/biblio?FT=D&DB=&locale=en_EP&CC=DE&NR=129870C&KC=C&ND=4

Freebmd (UK resource) lists registration of death of Henry Clay Bull in September quarter of 1904, age 60, in Dartford [Kent] Registration District, UK; age tallies with a birth c.1844.

US presidential elections[edit]

US presidential elections: Is it, in theory or practice, possible to replace a nominee (who may be the incumbent POTUS)?
I suspect that is must be possible, as nominees may succumb to an unexpected state of electoral coma prior to the election.
Some quick research has not shown that this has previously been done but I may have missed a historical precedence. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See [4]. 2A00:23C5:E117:6100:15E6:3AE1:D642:5E47 (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See also Horace Greeley and 1872 United States presidential election for a similar historical situation. --174.109.40.22 (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, sure. The actual elections for POTUS are held in the states and D.C. when the electors meet. Everything else is procedural stuff governed by state laws and, for political party nominations, party rules. Of course people have grown accustomed to a national popular vote that produces a clear winner. The problem is there isn't any black-letter law anywhere that mandates this; it's something that was jury-rigged onto the existing system when the U.S. shifted towards a popular democracy (for white males at least). Some constitutional scholars have criticized this rickety system as prone to failures, and it arguably already has failed recently in electing Presidents who don't win a popular plurality. The problem is changing this requires amending the U.S. Constitution, doing so is difficult, and at least one major party opposes doing so, which makes it more or less impossible. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Quite helpful. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It surely gets more difficult, in practice, the later you get. Right now, neither major-party nominating convention has been held, so the parties have no official nominees, though everyone knows who they're going to be. If the Republican National Committee decided that for extraordinary reasons it needed a nominee other than Trump (or if the Democratic National Committee came to a similar view on Biden), they could presumably change their nominating rules to make that happen.
Once you get to the point that the states have actually printed up their ballots, it gets a lot harder. The parties could ask the electors pledged to the candidate to vote for someone else, I suppose, though that overlaps with the issue to be decided in Colorado Department of State v. Baca, and in any case doesn't solve the problem that the candidate they don't want on the ballot will still be the one on the ballot. It would be a lot of tricky state-by-state legal work and probably would not have a uniform outcome. --Trovatore (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM: Insofar as political parties, as opposed to government institutions, are concerned, there is an example, James S. Sherman, who was the Vice President under William Howard Taft from 1909 to 1912. Sherman was renominated together with Taft by the June 1912 Republican National Convention but died, while still Vice President, the following October 30 (too late to change most printed ballot papers). As a Vice-Presidential place-holder for Republican Electors to vote for in December, the Republican National Committee nominated Nicholas Murray Butler (president of Columbia University). In the event, this didn't matter much because only 8 Electors out of 531 chose Taft & Butler, from Utah and Vermont. [Although the incumbent, Taft came in third in the overall national popular vote with 23% against 27% for former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt (Taft's predecessor) running for the Progressive Party, 42% for the successful Democratic nominee Woodrow Wilson and 6% for the Socialist Eugene V. Debs. This is one of a handful of presidential elections between at least three men who either had been or would become President, cf. 1832, 1960 and 1980]. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential republic[edit]

Are there any presidential republics other than the United States that are considered to be first world countries with a stable and democratic government (as opposed to countries that are nominally republics but in practice aren't)? Secondly, is the apparent popularity of parliamentary republics due to the influence of the British Empire, or is there another factor involved? I'm curious because a quick look Democracy Index seems to suggest parliamentary governments are far more popular than presidential ones, among the high ranking countries on the list. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 15:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On your first point, Ireland. 2A00:23C5:E117:6100:15E6:3AE1:D642:5E47 (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And Iceland as well. Anyone can walk into the office of the Prime Minister of Iceland for a chat. 2A00:23C5:E117:6100:15E6:3AE1:D642:5E47 (talk) 15:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Our article Republic of Ireland says that it's a parliamentary republic. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 15:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) on your second point, see Westminster system. 2A00:23C5:E117:6100:15E6:3AE1:D642:5E47 (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Oireachtas. 2A00:23C5:E117:6100:15E6:3AE1:D642:5E47 (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Well, nine out of the first twelve on that list are constitutional monarchies, and others that have moved from that system to a republic have found it simpler to replace the role of the monarch with a non-executive president rather than abolish the whole system and start from scratch - examples are Germany and Italy. How much influence Britain's example had on non-English-speaking countries is a point of debate I imagine. Alansplodge (talk) 15:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It might be worth mentioning that the role of the President of Italy is not entirely ceremonial. He (or she, in principle, though that hasn't happened yet) has a modicum of flexibility in the formation of new minority or coalition governments. He can also veto laws if he finds them unconstitutional (he's not supposed to do it just because he disagrees with the law). It's not a large political presence, but it's more plausible for it to be important than it is for the Queen of England. --Trovatore (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Britain is not a republic but a monarchy. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 16:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone was saying that it is a republic Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (we tried it once but didn't like it much), however Britain did have a leading role in the development of parliamentary governance. Alansplodge (talk) 19:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Part of your problem is that Western Europe's extensive reliance on monarchy has, as Alansplodge notes, probably prompted the creation of weak post-monarchial presidencies in many countries, and states like France, with semipresidential systems, are the result of attempts to strengthen the weaknesses of parliamentary systems, rather than attempts to create presidential systems outright. File:Forms of government.svg shows that presidential systems are rare outside the Americas, Africa, and central Asia; few countries in those regions are highly developed. But you should note that the map depicts South Korea as presidential. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To build on that answer, relevant articles seem to be either Presidential_system#Republics_with_a_presidential_system_of_government or List_of_countries_by_system_of_government#Presidential_systems. Your answer will depend on which definitions of presidential and of republic you are going with. The second list includes Portugal and Nyttend's example, France, among the “semi-presidential” systems.70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out that, for the purposes of this question, I am not making any distinctions between republics, and constitutional monarchies that are republics in all but name. I'm asking my question based on the distinction between presidential and parliamentary governments. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 17:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most countries with a president also have a parliament. The Bolsheviks pressed for a democratically-elected Duma (parliament) but after they seized power they dissolved it. The third element in the system of checks and balances is the judiciary, and specifically the system of judicial review. 2A00:23C5:E117:6100:15E6:3AE1:D642:5E47 (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are somewhat arbitrary categories that political scientists have found useful, but it's not clear to me that they are well enough defined to be able to make this sort of comparison. It's somewhat by historical accident (as opposed to constitutional text) that the American Speaker of the House doesn't act as a prime minister (Newt Gingrich gave it a good try, but failed). We list Russia as "semi-presidential" but Putin pretty much does what he likes. --Trovatore (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to swallow that the presidential (rather than parliamentary) nature of American government was caused by "historical accident." The President is mentioned extensively in Articles I and II, and the Constitution introduces the position with: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America." The Speaker, on the other hand, is mentioned exactly once, almost in passing: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." I don't think there could have been any constitutional way for a speaker to assume the role of head of government. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 21:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially through the power of the purse, which is a core constitutional concept. It basically lets Congress say no to anything the executive might want to do, by refusing to fund it. At least that was Gingrich's theory. As I said it turned out not to work, but I don't think it was obvious that it wouldn't, ahead of time. --Trovatore (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The degree of power that the Executive Branch wields in American government is most certainly a deviation from the original design, and is largely a creature of the 20th Century (especially the New Deal). The number of mentions of the President is certainly relevant, though it's also important to note the primacy of the Congress in the Constitution. Article I—the very first article—deals with the Congress. Then Article II discusses the Executive branch.
I personally consider the original concept of presidential election to represent something very similar to the Westminster System. Instead of Representatives directly choosing the President, the people were to elect special, temporary, single-purpose representatives who would be the direct targets of the candidates' campaigns; much like how MPs choose the Prime Minister.
In response to the original question, I'm not personally aware of another country in the world whose national government is structured in a comparable way to the United States federal government. Even those with non-vestigial heads of their respective executive branches often have a more limited form of constitutionalism, a unicameral legislation, or no federalism... or are simply dictatorships with vestigial legislatures. When Justice Scalia testified before Congress in 2011, his opening statements were interesting (if opinionated) [5]. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"dictatorships with vestigial legislatures" I guess that rules out Liberia, which otherwise has a structure nearly identical to the American one.
In response to Trovatore, the power of the purse is vested in Congress, not the speaker. The fact that Congress ultimately has authority over the President is a given; that's a core part of the Constitution, and is what makes the country a republic in the first place, but that has no bearing on what type of government America has. The defining feature of a parliamentary system is that the head of government derives their legitimacy from the legislature, and that simply isn't what the Constitution describes. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 21:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The constitution never uses the term "head of government". That's one of those after-the-fact categories that the poli-sci people come up with; it has no constitutional meaning. --Trovatore (talk) 21:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Than substitute head of government with executive power. My point is the same; I was just trying to use the vocabulary typically employed when describing these kinds of governments. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 22:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Constitution doesn't really define "executive power", unless you want to say that it defines it implicitly by giving the president a set of enumerated powers. Unfortunately the presidency has progressed way beyond that. This is a very bad thing, and not at all the original plan. --Trovatore (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but I don’t think that the office of the president was ever intended to be the ceremonial position that it is in truly parliamentary republics. The fact that the executive, whatever that may entail, is elected rather than appointed by the legislature, is what forces that distinction to be made. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 01:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, I didn't mean that it was ever meant to be ceremonial. But I think the intent was for the legislature to be stronger relative to the president than things have turned out. --Trovatore (talk) 01:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's just it, I don't think the "vestigial branch" phenomenon observed in European republics was particularly intended either. Just as by some contemporary accounts, the U.S. Supreme Court wasn't intended to have as much power or significance as it has come to wield. In the U.S., one of the principles that was intended to prevent the concentration of power in any particular branch was, to paraphrase Madison in Federalist No. 51, ambition was made to counteract ambition; in order to protect the ambitions of their members or those they represent, each branch of the government needed to resist the ambitions of the other. And so the Presidency never became subordinate, the Congress has resisted becoming subordinate, and the Supreme Court resisted early efforts of some founders to remain subordinate (see the controversy surrounding Marbury). 199.66.69.67 (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uruguay, a presidential republic with a stable and democratic government, scores high on virtually all aspects that tend to distinguish "first world" countries, particularly if that term is taken in the increasingly common sense of "a highly developed industrialized nation with westernized social norms".[6]  --Lambiam 09:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I encountered Uruguay after I posted my question, when I had time to peruse the list. I'm tempted to conclude that it might be the only country that satisfies my criteria of being a functional, stable democracy that has a presidential form of government. France comes close, but the phrase semi-presidential seems a bit too vague to add it to the category. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 19:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you include the top 3 quarters of countries considered to be democratic by the democracy index, the final list looks like this:

Unsurprisingly, the majority are in South America. --PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 19:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Puzzledvegetable: I have heard from somewhere on Twitter (probably from an Argentine-American) that the reason presidential system is primarily popular in the Americas is because it has to do with the relationship between a having a colonial society with a racial underclass dominated by white elites and having a strong executive head of government/state independent of the legislature. Though he did not go into much detail of how exactly. Newly independent Latin American countries could also be taking the American system of government as inspiration for their own though of course it did not work out as intended for most, if not all, of them at least in the first 100 years. StellarHalo (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mulmholk[edit]

Has anyone ever heard an English term equivalent to sv:Mulmholk? An actual term, not simply a translation; I wonder if this is a concept in the minds of anglophone people. Google Translate of that article says:

A mole is a box similar to a bird's nest but intended for insects. The hollow is filled with sawdust, leaves and sometimes other material that is affected by nutrient content and moisture conditions. The purpose is to emulate conditions in tree cavities. In the cavities there is often mud, which forms the habitat for a variety of specialized small insects, especially beetles. Many of these species are threatened. Creating a new habitat in the form of hollow trees takes a couple of hundred years if the trees are missing, but with the help of moles you can create suitable habitats for many of these species within a couple of years. Mulch holes can therefore be used as ecological compensation. A very large number of wood insect species can live in moths, but a lot of the most specialized moths do not. Unlike a hollow tree, which can survive for centuries, the moleholes constitute a habitat for some decade. Moleholes have also been used in scientific experiments.

Asking because I discovered c:Category:Mulmholk, and I'm tempted to send it to CFD because categories are supposed to have English names. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about Insect hotel? It links to sv:/Insektshotell though, not Mulmholk, so I'm not entirely clear on the difference. Maybe Beetle bank is closer? There's an Insect Conservation category that might work for a category merge. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Insect hotel" is the most common term I've come across, not least because the structures can be paid for by an actual human hotel, which then have their branding on the on-site explanatory panel. The inevitable alliterative spin-off is a bed and breakfast establishment, as in a bee B&B (recommended by the RSPB [7]). Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I need with help in regards to genealogy and supercentenarian research, where on Wikipedia should I ask for help?[edit]

If I need with help in regards to genealogy and supercentenarian research, where on Wikipedia should I ask for help? I mean things such as asking people who have an Ancestry.com account to provide me with the Social Security Applications of various supercentenarian claimants if such applications are indeed publicly available on Ancestry.com. Futurist110 (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You could try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Longevity for a start. Alansplodge (talk) 19:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't seem to be getting much views. Should I simply ask at the Resource Exchange/Resource Request instead? Futurist110 (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You could try FamilySearch's version of the SSDI, which is listed within Social Security Death Index. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this. If you need SSDI data Ancestry is no better than FamilySearch. You don't get particularly high-quality data, nor do you get original documents for Social Security stuff from Ancestry. Alternatively, check if your local public library provides access. Mine has Ancestry library edition and they're permitting cardholders to use the service remotely during the pandemic. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't Ancestry.com also contain people's Social Security Applications, though? Futurist110 (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It contains abstracted information. Not the actual application. And the abstracted information in the dataset I think you're talking about is rarely more enlightening than the Social Security Death Index information. In fact, I think the only time I've found it more useful is looking at a woman with multiple marriages and trying to figure out roughly when she married whom and in what order, since the database includes information on when different names were used. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 00:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd actually consider it significantly more useful since it includes the names of one's parents as well as one's birthplace and one's race. For instance, here is an example:
Name: James Monroe King
SSN: 438544882
Gender: Male
Race: White
Birth Date: 15 Nov 1854
Birth Place: Brinkley Nde, Arkansas
Father Name: Wm E King
Mother Name: Annie Slaughter
Type of Claim: Original SSN.
Notes: Dec 1955: Name listed as JAMES MONROE KING
Futurist110 (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might check on the talk pages of articles related to longevity and supercentenarians on wikipedia. Note that there were once some horrendous editing disputes over these topics, resulting in an arb case or two, so the biggest zealots might no longer be around. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:C4FC (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2020_July_1&oldid=1198386863"