Humanities desk
< October 12	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 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.

October 13

The other side of the coin

(edit conflict)Re this question:

Following on from the 25 September discussion, the "Application form for university transcript", Kurukshetra University, Kurukshetra [1] says at Q.8:
"Mode of Instructions (English/Hindi) ________________________________ If English, please see instructions backside (Point No. 8).
Is the word before the bracket often used in anything other than an anatomical context? The reverse of the form begins:

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the applicant Mr./Miss/Mrs. ____________________________________ son/daughter of Shri ______________________________________________ has signed the application overleaf in my presence & whose Photograph has also been attested by me is the same person who got through the examination under particulars mentioned overleaf.
This word Shri is the equivalent of "Mr" or "Ms" but is gender neutral. Do any other languages have gender neutral forms? 2A02:C7F:A66:F500:2D88:9AD6:4E53:B4AE (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Nguyen Thanh Yen, Tieng Anh trong Phong Van (Ho Chi Minh, November 2006) says at p. 190:

On the front side, the seven white and six red stripes on the shield represent the thirteen original states...The reverse side of the seal shows an incomplete pyramid of thirteen steps above which is a burst of light with an eye inside a triangle, symbolizing "The Eternal Eye of God".

Vietnam (a non-English speaking country) does not (in this situation) use this word which also has an anatomical meaning but India does. Why? Re this question:

Nil Einne's link introduces this Supreme Court judgment [2]. This appears to support this comment:
Having read all the questions and answers it appears that the purpose of the electoral college is to prevent the President and Vice-President coming from different parties.
- 92.8.176.35 16:44, 9 October 2020

What do the constitutional experts say on the matter? 194.53.184.26 (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The book lends credence to this theory on page 204:

48. Q: How are the electors chosen?

Ans: Each state choses a number of electors equal to the number of its Senators plus its Representatives in Congress. It is customary for each elector to vote for the candidates of the political party that elected him to the electoral college [but it's the voters who choose the electors, either on a "straight ticket" or on a "split ticket", right?] The candidate with the highest number of votes in each state wins all the electoral votes of that state.

49. Q: What is the electoral college?

Ans: The electoral college consists of the electors who meet in their respective states to vote for President and Vice-President.

On p. 254 the book says:

Yes, each city has a system of "checks and balances" consisting of the mayor or city manager, the city council and the municipal courts.

What is a "municipal court"? 92.5.224.199 (talk) 12:06, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On p. 208 the book says:

57. Q: Can foreign-born citizens of the United States ever become President of the United States?
Ans: No, foreign-born citizens of the United States can run for any office except that of President or Vice-President of the United States.

58. Q: May a child born in this country of parents who are aliens or naturalised citizens become President?

Ans: Yes, any native-born citizens may become President of the United States.

I think the problem here is the use of the phrase "native-born". I've seen it on a few occasions recently, but isn't the actual phrase "natural-born"? 146.200.241.105 (talk) 11:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having read Duncan's comment of 14:55, 15 October 2020 (below) I have to agree with you. 92.5.224.199 (talk) 13:51, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All is revealed here [3]. Apparently a slave was counted as three-fifths of a person. 212.159.12.93 (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks, Jayron32 and Alansplodge. Cheers, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 22:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany, nominal wealth is relatively low, because it does not include the value of earned state-system retirement pensions. These pensions are substantial (on average around EUR 1000/month), and are paid lifelong (around 15 years on average), so they are worth around EUR 200000. These make up the bulk of retirement preparations for most people in the poorer 2/3rds of the population. People that are more well-off typically have more substantial private investments - which increases the average, but not the median. I would assume a somewhat similar effect in Sweden and the Netherlands, which also have strong state-run social security systems. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Assassinating Vladimir Lenin before 1917?

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

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

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

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

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

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

As I understand it, in modern times the Vice President rarely presides over the Senate, only doing so when it's expected they may need to cast a tie-breaking vote or on special occasions. This is mentioned in our article with a link to this source [4] (check the Vice-Presidential Duties section). The President pro tempore has the right to preside in their steed, but this isn't a temporary position since 1890. In modern times the oldest senator from the party with the Senate majoriy is appointed to this position, although unlike the non-temporary part, this isn't something even written in the rules, just tradition. [5] But, and this is something I didn't know until now, the President Pro Tempore (who was Byrd himself at the time) doesn't actual preside over the Senate much either. Instead they appoint/name someone else, [6] evidently normally a junior senator who is the one who mostly presides. This is mentioned in our article, which also explicitly mentions that the list doesn't include such people. As RudolfRed said I'm sure you can find it somewhere. Nil Einne (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 07:51, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to [7] which is from 2008 so probably reflects how things were during 2007 "As a result, the duties of presiding officer are routinely filled by a rotation of junior and first-term Senators of the majority party who preside for approximately one hour at a time." So no surprise our article doesn't try to cover such people. One thing I was going to mention but didn't because wasn't sure if it mattered but it seems it does, the person the President Pro-Tempore names can themselves name someone else, hence how this rotation can happen. And it seems likely you'll need to know what time Byrd's speech was to work out although it's possible there was only one female in rotation on that day this being the US Senate in 2007. Nil Einne (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Here is the record for that date [8]. The presiding officer at the time was Mrs Amy Klobuchar. 95.151.24.100 (talk) 10:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Always so nice to see a best of the Refdek thread – this one now has it all: the answer, information about how it was found, and fascinating background context to explain it. Thumbs up team! 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:36, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"MS. Klobuchar", technically - Senator from Minnesota. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone! Kaldari (talk) 01:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]