Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 February 3

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

February 3

Indian names used by Muslims

Which surnames of India, whether it is Gujarati, Oriya, Marathi, or Punjabi is used by Muslims only like Patel, Chaudhuri, etc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.76 (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Which districts of India Muslims?

Which districts of India have significant Muslim population like Murshidabad district of West Bengal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.229.76 (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

See Template:Indian_Muslim - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Baptist Children

Hi folks, I hope you can help me with this: if I am describing someone who attended a Baptist church with his family when he was a child, should I say he was A. "raised as a Baptist" or B. "he was raised Baptist". I tend to hear B. used a lot, but primarily in colloquial speech (though, where I live, there are a lot more people who say they were raised Catholic than Baptist) but I'm not sure which would be preferred in Featured Article quality prose (which is what I'm shooting for here). Or is this one of those things where both are acceptable? Mark Arsten (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I would go with A on the philosophy that if you know a phrasing is likely to cause comment at FAC, and unless you feel really strongly about it, go with the more conventional phrasing, which is A. B I think I would expect to see in speech.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

B is never correct, imo. The adjective (Baptist, Catholic, etc) applies to the relevant Church and things associated with it, such as Baptist teachings, Baptist practices etc. However, an individual is not "Baptist", but "a Baptist", meaning "a member of the Baptist Church", just like "a Rotarian" is "a member of Rotary". We don't say that so and so is "Rotarian". In any case, either of your options is preferable to the silly expression "He was born (a) Baptist". -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I read B as using "Baptist" as an adverb, rather than an adjective. That is, it's describing how he was raised (with Baptist ideology). Thus I would tend toward interpreting A as a simple statement of membership (while he was being raised, he was a member of/attended a Baptist church), and B as more of a statement of ideological association (while he was being raised, he held/believed in/was indoctrinated with the values/ideals of the Baptist church). I might be splitting hairs here, though. -- 140.142.20.101 (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Would you say someone was "raised Jewish" or "raised a Jew"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, well, thanks for setting me straight on this. In the article we have it "as a Baptist" so I will be sure not to change it. It just struck me as a bit odd since I am so used to hearing it the other way. I guess this is one of those times where you just can't trust the Huffington Post style guide! Mark Arsten (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"Indoctrinated as a Baptist", according to Richard Dawkins. Mitch Ames (talk) 04:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Fortunately, Richard Dawkins is not typically involved in FA discussions: I doubt he would be able to conform to NPOV, and would probably bring up his opposition to religion in completely irrelevant discussions. 86.166.41.126 (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of Wikipedia principles, that was a comment that did not demonstrate AGF. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Criminal politicians

What has been the percentage number of MPs in jail in recent years compared to the average for the general population? If Chris Huhne is jailed will that effect the result? SpinningSpark 10:31, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

a) I have no idea, but to clarify - do you mean just for Britain, for all countries with a Westminster system, or for all countries with elected governments? b) Yes, whatever the percentage is, it will increase.Colonel Tom 10:34, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for not being clear, I meant for the UK, I thought the link to Huhne would imply that, although answers for other countries would be interesting also. I know that jailing Huhne would increase the statistic (by one), but what I was after is would it cause a change from less politicians are jailed than the general population to more politicians are jailed. Perfectly possible that this strange result could come about given the small number of MPs and the consequently large percentage change that one would make. To be even more specific, I am looking for person-years in jail per 1000 population over a ten or twenty year period. SpinningSpark 12:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Depends a bit. Most MPs who ended up in jail did so over the expenses scandal, and by the time they were sentenced they'd been voted out, kicked out or resigned. If we're going for people arrested for crimes committed while they were MPs, even if they weren't MPs at the time they were jailed, then Elliot Morley, David Chaytor, Jim Devine, Margaret Moran and Eric Illsley. Illsley is the only one who was still an MP at the time he was found guilty. Before that, Jonathan Aitken was jailed in 1999 for perjury committed while he was an MP. Jeffrey Archer was also jailed in 2001, but though he had been an MP, he wasn't at the time he committed the crime. Those are all the recent cases. From the 2005-2010 parliament, which had 646 MPs in it, 5 were jailed (so far), which is 0.77% of the population of politicians. If Hulne is jailed, that'll rise to 0.92% (if Denis MacShane is also jailed, that'd push it to over 1%). Over the whole decade, that number will be smaller. I can't find the exact numbers, but I'd guess there have been about 1200 MPs between 2001 and 2010, so that's a rough figure of something like 0.4%. According to our article United Kingdom prison population, the percentage of the UK population in jail as a whole is 0.14%. So yes, in recent years, MPs make a disproportionate number of our prison population. Smurrayinchester 13:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit Just realised I made a mistake, and Margaret Moran hasn't been jailed - she was deemed psychiatrically unfit for trial and the case was adjourned. That's 4 out of 646, not 5, which is 0.62% Smurrayinchester 16:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Were all four of those imprisoned at the same time, however? If not, you'd really need to compare it to the proportion of the population imprisoned at any point between 2005-2010, which is probably comfortably more than 0.14% Shimgray | talk | 21:05, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Romney/Bush, but not as we know it

So there is significant speculation that Mitt Romney will win the Republican nomination and possibly make Jeb Bush his running mate. My question isn't about that, the reference desk isn't a crystal ball etc. My questions are about the (much less speculated) idea that Romney might make George W. Bush his running mate. My questions are this:

1. Is he allowed to do this? Is there any restriction on placing former Presidents as a VP candidate on the ticket?

2. Has this ever happened?

3. Say he is allowed, and it does happen. The Romney/Bush ticket wins the election, but then Romney dies in office. What happens? George W. has already been President twice, so he can't be again. Does he have to resign? Or is he simply skipped in the order of succession, and the Speaker of the House leapfrogs him into the hot seat? Or is the answer that because of this scenario he can't be a VP candidate at all, in which case we could have stopped at question 1. Or is this a hitherto unforeseen scenario that allows a president to serve many terms (doubtful)?

Many thanks everyone,

86.166.191.40 (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

On a side note: this story of George W. Bush as VP is a known urban legend. 212.170.181.95 (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be a somewhat open question. See Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution#Interaction_with_the_Twelfth_Amendment. On face value, it would be legal, as the 22nd only restricts election to the office, not some other way of becoming president, and thus the 12th does not apply. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

That's interesting. I liked to jokingly speculate in the past how a certain President was put in place so a certain vice-president could take over after just over 2 years so they could serve for the maximum (nearly) 10 years, but the president got so popular the first term that had to be abandonded, then so unpopular the second term, the VP didn't want to take over. If this suggestion is correct it seems this complicated scenario isn't necessary. The US's Putin-esque president can be President for life by having a bunch of dummy presidents to be elected president for a day before stepping down. Actually may be to keep things simple the president can take his oath of office then announce he's stepping down. Nil Einne (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

He wouldn't even have to go that far. He becomes President at noon on January 20; the swearing-in is to enable him to execute the duties of the office, but if he had no intention of executing any of the duties, he could just skip that step. At 12:01 pm he could announce he'd changed his mind about the whole thing and the person who'd been VP for the past minute will now be sworn in as president instead. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The Democrats would certainly challenge the certificates signed by the Bush electors on the ground they designated an ineligible person. This would happen in the joint session for the counting. I imagine that unlike in 2001, they would find a senator and a representative to make the challenge (no senator was willing in 2001). If they were voided, then the choice would devolve on the Senate per the Constitution. It would never reach the courts, it is a political question. (yes, there would be many court cases filed, but I doubt they would get anywhere). It would be a tremendous distraction throughout the campaign. And to my mind, the plain language of the 12th and 22nd Amendments rules this out. It would cost the Republicans votes among their base. This would never happen. And no former president has ever run for vice president since the 22nd Amendment became effective, though there was talk about a Reagan/Ford ticket in 1980.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Another reason this would never happen is that it's hard to imagine a presidential candidate--with all the ego that implies--ever upstaging themself in this manner. Meelar (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Also, I think that Romney would recognize that the Bush name would be a liability on the ticket. There have already been two Bushes who ushered in nasty recessions, and the name does not have the best associations for most of the public. Marco polo (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the Democrats would love a Bush on the ticket. Any Bush. The name association is still so unpleasant with liberals and moderates. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Legally this can happen. To serve as Vice-president one must meet all the requirements to be president. Though George W. Bush is not eligible to be elected president, he can serve two additional years. Therefore, if Romney is elected, then dies, Bush can serve for two years until he himself must resign. The same scenario can apply to Bill Clinton.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is correct. There is no requirement that a president cannot have served 15 or even 20 years to be president. The rule is that he cannot be elected to become president if he has already been elected twice, or if he has served at least 1.5 terms. Note the difference between "serves" and "is elected". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I really don't think so, William. If you read the texts of the two amendments, you could make a case for it being constitutional, or unconstitutional; my own interpretation is that according to the precise wording, it would be legal, but it probably violates the intent. But there's no way to interpret things in such a way that it would be OK, but that Bush would have to resign halfway thru the third term. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

A similar scenario: A former 2-term President becomes Speaker of the House, and the President and Vice-president are incapacitated. Does the order of succession skip the Speaker? In this case, it seems to me that he would clearly become President again, as he would not be violating either amendment. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. The Presidential Succession Act says the relevant provisions "shall apply only to such officers as are eligible to the office of President under the Constitution. " That doesn't answer that many questions. If I recall discussion of this point when Kissinger was SecState, the papers said he would not be eligible. Remember, for part of that time there was no VP (twice) and so he was putatively fourth in line.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The same thing would apply if the Speaker of the House were not a natural-born US citizen. They could be eligible for the Speakership, but not for the Presidency. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's the thing. They couldn't succeed to the Presidency if they met one of the criteria in the Constitution that excludes you from being President, but in this case (unlike Kissinger) they would only meet the criteria that excludes you from being elected President. I suppose it's possible the 22nd Amendment could be read in such a way that it prevents the ex-President being elected Vice-President, but I don't see how it could prevent him from being elected a Representative, and then chosen to be Speaker. And once he's Speaker, in the scenario I describe, I don't see what provision would prevent him from succeeding to the Presidency. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. It seems he can serve indefinitely as long as someone else is elected.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It's capable of interpretation either way. And there's the added complication of the 25th Amendment. What if there's a vacancy in the vice presidency? Can the President nominate Bush or Clinton, and can they take office if confirmed by the 2/3 vote of each house?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Say Biden's ticker gives out and Obama says "I'm nominating Clinton for Vice President—no, not you, Hillary!" That is, to fill out the remainder of Biden's term if confirmed by Congress, not for election to a new term. Set it in 2014.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the issue here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If Americans are so in love with the idea of a single, written constitution, why have they written such a bad one? It's ridiculously vague and open to a wide variety of interpretations (and not just on this topic). Were there not lawyers involved in the drafting of the original document and the various amendments that should have known how to write an unambiguous legal document? --Tango (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The Founders intentionally made the constitution vague: it was intended as a skeleton document, a baseline from which other laws could be based as need and changing times required. in fact, the move towards constitutional literalism (which has been a big thing over the past 20 years or so) is deeply antithetical to the wishes of the founders, who would have been the first to assert that they did not have the wisdom to dictate what people 200 years in the future would need or want.

this is the tricky part of establishing a lasting democratic state:the goal is to protect the principles that lie behind the written text, which means that sometimes the written text needs to change or be reinterpreted in order to conform the the same principles in changing times. But it can't be too malleable, otherwise it will be reinterpreted or changed in ways that defeat its underlying principles. it's always a rough line to ride. --Ludwigs2 22:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Well said... that's the tricky part of writing Wikipedia's policy as well. Blueboar (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

IMHO the tricky part of establishing a lasting democratic state is basic education and food. A Democracy has to rest upon educated and informed citizens and not text written upon pieces of paper which can be endlessly reinterpreted by lawyers, politicians, intellectuals and fools. It is well-informed citizens who will demand rights protected by fair laws for everybody and who will vote wisely. Well-informed citizens will know what is wrong and what is right. They will be outraged and will go to the barricades if their government goes against the rights and freedoms of the citizenry and of citizens of other nations. Have not no doubt: the true enemies of democracy are Ignorance, which largely rests upon lack of education and Disinformation supported by selective censorship. Ignorant disinformed masses will be easily manipulated into voting poorly, no matter if their national constitution is the finest creation of the ages (no comments about the quality of the US constitution which was written in 1787 - a fine document of its time).

And food. A democracy is worth absolutely nothing if the masses lack food. A starving people is a desperate people. A desperate people will support anyone with an easy solution, no matter the price.

That's the true reason why dictatorships censor and manipulate information. They are afraid of their own citizens and want to narrow their minds. Without truly having access to the whole information those can't decide wisely, can they? Flamarande (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Bear in mind also that there weren't a ton of precedents for establishing a working democracy at the time, even an incomplete and hideously flawed one like the US circa 1787. The constitution is essentially an alpha or early beta version, you'd expect a few bugs (mine personal bete noir is the Senate). Meelar (talk) 00:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

This idea that the US was unusual in its democracy at its founding is completely untrue. The US was no more democratic that numerous other countries at that time. --Tango (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that is quite correct. If you restrict the Demos to male, white, and somewhat affluent, then the early US was quite democratic. And the colonies had a fairly large fraction of "somewhat affluent" people. Which other countries did you have in mind? Britain had a parliament, but a horribly undemocratic way of electing members. Most other countries did not even have an effective parliament. Anyways, I think one of Jefferson's greatest achievements was that he wrote "that all men are created equal", although his mental model probably equated that with "that all freeborn male Englishmen are created equal". The second phrase does not quite have the same timeless ring... ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:38, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Tango, I am not a proponent of American exceptionalism, but I challenge you on your "numerous" claim. At the time the U.S. Constitution was enacted, almost half of white men were qualified to vote. That number amounted to at least a third of the adult male population. By present-day standards, that doesn't sound very democratic, but I challenge you to name more than a handful of countries that had a remotely democratic system with more liberal suffrage in 1783. I'll start your list: Iceland, Switzerland, ... In fact, I don't think that you will find many countries other than these two small European countries in which more than a third of adult males had a voice in government at that time. Certainly not Britain (with its completely undemocratic House of Lords) before the Reform Act of 1832. By the time of the Reform Act of 1832, incidentally, the United States already had universal suffrage for white men (or about 80% of the male population), something that Britain did not achieve until the 20th century. Of course, the racial restrictions on voting were odious, but so were class restrictions, which affected a much larger share of the population in Britain. Gender restrictions were equally odious, but there was hardly a country without those until the 20th century. Marco polo (talk) 02:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What really sets the US apart (IMO) is that it was the first time that any collectivity tried to create a society based on liberal principles from the ground up, rather than trying to graft liberal institutions onto an illiberal framework. I mean, just the idea that a bunch of people sat down in a room with the question "How do we want to govern ourselves?", and tried to answer it, is more or less phenomenal. They made mistakes: the 3/5ths compromise, various forms of institutional distrust of the populace, the presidency (we have a president because the CC was afraid people would revolt if they didn't have a king-substitute, but it was a lousy idea from the get-go). But all-in-all it was a rare moment in history.

Not sure I'd categorize the 3/5 compromise as a mistake. Given that representation in the House was going to be proportional, and that slavery was going to be allowed, should slaveholders have been given disproportional political strength by allowing them to count their obviously non-voting property as their political constituency as well? In other words, should a man with ten slaves get 11 votes (or, at least, shares of a Congressman)? The anti-slavery forces wanted slaves not to be counted at all (for the purpose of representation); the pro-slavery forces wanted them to be fully counted. Complicated. But not in the direction most people think. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as the 'white/male' thing, the history of liberalism is one of expansion. Basically it starts with propertied white males saying to aristocrats "Hey, we're no more and no less deserving than you are," and then group after group standing up and saying "Hey, us too!" You can't expect people to realize immediately that people different from them are like to them in the ways that count, but once you start infusing a society with liberal ideals egalitarianism tends to spread. democratization is a generational project; it's been over 200 years and the US still hasn't fully gotten it, but time rolls on. --Ludwigs2 07:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

So who is next? Computers, dolphins or great apes? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:31, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Curiously, I think computers have a better shot at citizenship than intelligent animals, due to the "playing god" aspect of the latter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

just like any other group, whichever one stands up and demands its rights will have a fair shot. --Ludwigs2 18:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)}}

The US may have had lower property requirements than, say, Britain, but it was still just wealthy white men that could vote. The Senate was no more elected than the House of Lords (although the selection was done by the state governments rather than the national government as it was and is in Britain, which is an improvement). The US may have been more democratic by degree, but the system the founders came up with is very similar to the systems used elsewhere. The idea that they didn't have any precedents to follow is untrue - they very much followed the precedents set by Britain and other European countries. --Tango (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. was about 50 years ahead of Britain -- in the 1780s being roughly comparable to Britain in 1832, and during the Jacksonian era of the 1830s coming close to universal white manhood suffrage, comparable to 1884 Britain (the main quasi-patrician survivals being Rhode Island prior to the Dorr Rebellion, and no popular election for the presidency in South Carolina until 1868). AnonMoos (talk) 05:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

The House of Lords contained lots of un(s)elected members until 1999: all those hereditaries that were not created lords themselves. And a new government couldn't/cannot replace those selected by previous governments. Selecting someone just for 6 years (as in the Senate) seems a vast improvement over selection for life and beyond, as in the HoL, to me. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ankh-Morpork had dallied with many forms of government and had ended up with that form of democracy known as "One Man, One Vote". The Patrician was the Man; he had the Vote. - Terry Pratchett. Blueboar (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Which melody is this?

Dear colleagues,

Does anyone know the name of this meloday in that documentary:

• here at 4:07 minutes
• here at 10:03 minutes. (both is the same)

The meloday itsself can be heard shortly, then it turns to the background as the speaker begins to talk.

Thanks for help, Jerchel (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't recognize it, but it sounds like part of a string quartet. Looie496 (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It's not one of the pieces listed in the credits (end of part 8, 5:24) unless it's a part of Prokofiev's Ivan the Terrible that I don't recognize (I don't think it is). Usually they list everything in the credits. I think it was composed for the documentary, since the music under the closing credits clearly was. Perhaps someone else will recognize it if I'm wrong. Antandrus (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Style issue

When a person's name uses the lower case 'de' (e.g. Eamon de Valera or Reginald de Veulle), what is the MoS format when the first name is dropped re: capitalising the 'de'?

Appears that if is starts a sentence it is capitalised - e.g. "De Valera was a leader of Ireland's struggle for independence..." but if mid-sentence, lower case is used e.g. "To strengthen his position against the opposition in the Dáil and Seanad, de Valera called a snap election...".

However, on Thomas de Quincey the surname is nearly always capitalised to De Quincey, e.g. "In 1800, De Quincey, aged fifteen...".

Just interested in the correct format for style. Londonclanger (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The relevant style guide is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters, but it doesn't give an answer to this question. There is a lot of (rather heated) discussion about the guide, including proper nouns, on the talk page. You could ask there, but having skimmed a bit of the discussion, I would advise staying well clear! --Tango (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

We used to have far more detailed advice somewhere. It's complicated; for example the Dutch and Flemish treatments are slightly different for both "de" and Van (Dutch) - contrast with von. But, yes, always a capital at the start of a sentence, and then see what sources do. Typically all mid-sentence uses will be consiistent, but I think that doesn't work for all languages. Johnbod (talk) 23:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Whether to capitalize it in the name (Foo de Bar vs. Foo De Bar) is actually a WP:NCP question, and it generally boils down to "follow the preference of the subject". Usage has never been consistent, though particular patterns are more common in particular areas, so educated guesses can be made. But we're an encyclopedia, so we're supposed to use reliable sources to find out, not guess. :-) With regard to Thomas de Quincey, if that is the real, sourced spelling, then "In 1800, De Quincey, aged fifteen..." is just plain wrong. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 16:49, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

PS: This even the case when the de-name appears at the beginning of a longer proper noun (at least in English and Spanish; I can't speak for French, Dutch, etc. usage), e.g. the de Young Museum in San Francisco. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 19:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

In French it depends on the length of the name: De Thou but de Tocqueville. Idioms for the New York Dutch (Van Buren) differ from those in Holland. The most useful guidance may be to follow what reliable sources do. JCScaliger (talk) 21:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The Oxford DNB capitalizes Thomas Penson De Quincey (and Augustus De Morgan) even in the full name. Therefore the sentence form should be De Quincey everywhere. (They also imply that it was De Quincey's own affectation, not shared with his family; if so, there's no reason to expect it to follow French custom.) JCScaliger (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Pope Urban VI

According to our article Pope Urban VI moved from Perugia with thousands of troops in August 1388 to Rome. How many thousands?--LordGorval (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I could find no statement of how many soldiers accompanied him at Google Book search. Many sources only offer an inadequate "snippet view." Edison (talk) 03:19, 5 February 2012 (UTC)