Humanities desk
< September 21	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 23 >

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.

September 22

Modern day nations part of Ottoman Empire

Is there a website that shows the map of Ottoman Empire and the modern-day nations that were part of it? So far, I know that Jordan, Palestine, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Turkey were part of the Ottoman Empire. Donmust90 (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about this map?: https://geopoliticalfutures.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/mena-ottoman-europe-colonies-1280.jpg Would that work for this? Futurist110 (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That map does not show the Empire at its greatest extent. For that, see File:OttomanEmpireMain.png.The Ottomans also claimed suzerainty over the Arabian Peninsula, but their control was weak and unsteady (see Ottoman Arabia). --Lambiam 12:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True. Anyway, can't one simply compare a present-day map with a map of the Ottoman Empire at its greatest extent simply by looking at them side-by-side? Futurist110 (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Central Powers monarchy abolition question

When was the idea of abolishing the Central Powers monarchies first become flirted with in the Entente countries during WWI? I mean either in politicians' statements/proposals or in statements/proposals by academics, commentators, journalists, and/or et cetera. Futurist110 (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it ever was an official goal of the Entente Powers per se. The abolition of those monarchies occured not as a condition of peace at the end of WWI, but through internal revolutions. See German Revolution of 1918–1919, Dissolution of Austria-Hungary and Republic of German-Austria, Abolition of the Caliphate. Of these, the only one with significant foreign intervention was Turkey. On the Entente side, you also had Russia, and the end of the Monarchist parties in France (prior to WWI, the Third Republic still had significant monarchist elements, that went away by 1920). It turns out the late 1910s was just a good time to end all of this monarchy nonsense. --Jayron 32 11:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Woodrow Wilson call on Germans to get rid of their Kaiser if they wanted peace, though? This was a couple of weeks before the World War I Armistice, I believe. Futurist110 (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is an uncited sentence at Abdication of Wilhelm II that hedges the notion that maybe Wilson may have suggested it in a note, but I don't see any reference or other information about that. Even if true, the revolutionaries during the German Revolution of 1918–1919 (which also, in a poorly referenced section, mentions such a "note"), which was happening at the same time, were unlikely to have either known about Wilson's putative proposal nor to care much about it. Abdication of the monarch is not abolition of the Monarchy, and absent the revolution there is an equally as likely a chance that another German noble or even member of the Hohenzollern family may have been selected as the next Kaiser. Even if we take the statement about Wilson encouraging abdication at face value, it doesn't say he advocated abolition of the Monarchy. --Jayron 32 18:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson's reply dated 14 October 1918 to Chancellor Maximilian's peace note of 7 October 1918 (number 6 of 8 points):

"SIXTH: That the cardinal condition of peace is the destruction of the arbitrary power which can separately, secretly and of its single choice, disturb the peace of the world, or, if not destroyed, be rendered innocuous. The present German dynasty is such power and it is within the choice of the German people to rid themselves of this power, or, at least, to make it harmless. The Hohenzollerns must go" [my emphasis]. From The Peace Notes: The Armistice: The Surrender.

176.227.136.190 (talk) 10:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that. The articles in question would benefit from such addition. I will note that the distinction between "Find a new Emperor" and "Get rid of the Monarchy" is apt here, and I don't see that Wilson makes any statement that could be interpreted as the latter. --Jayron 32 11:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then why use "Hohenzollerns" in the plural sense? If one says "The Hohenzollerns must go", doesn't that mean that all Hohenzollerns must go? Why not simply say that the German Kaiser must go if the intention is to only get rid of him personally and not of the Hohenzollern dynasty in general? Futurist110 (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although replacing one "arbitrary power" with another would not have satisfied Wilson. The German establishment thought that moving to a constitutional monarchy might do, but Wilhelm signalled his rejection of that plan by moving the court military HQ from Berlin to Spa. See News from Germany: The Competition to Control World Communications, 1900–1945 (p. 73). 176.227.136.190 (talk) 12:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Role of a split Supreme Court in a contested Presidential election

The Financial Times recently ran an article "What happens if Trump loses but refuses to concede?" It ran a worst case scenario which was that Trump would sue in swing states - Pennsylvania was the example used - where he has an advantage on election night but not after mail-in ballots are begun to be counted. Likewise, if when counting the electoral college votes there are both republican and democrat electors sent to congress for contested states and congress is gridlocked on how to apportion them, but Mike Pence, as VP - and thus overseeing the counting of the electoral college votes - declares republican ones to be legitimate, this would spark claims by democrats of a coup and provoke a legal challenge.

Either of these outcomes appear to becoming at least likely and generate legal scenarios that may require the intervention of the Supreme Court. The problem being that, following the death of Justice Ginsberg, the Supreme Court only has eight members, with no guarantee that it will have 9 by January. So my question is if it is asked to intervene in a disputed election and it is deadlocked in its decision making (4-4 each way), what happens then? There doesn't seem to be any constitutional provision to remedy this unless I'm missing something. --Andrew 09:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What happens then is "We make it up as we go along". Same as always. Precedent only matters if the winning side has it. Otherwise, it's all just ad hoc. We've had two previous contested elections that hinged on contested results in close states. The 2000 United States presidential election was decided by the Supreme Court, which voted to stop the recount in Florida and to certify the existing results, and the 1876 United States presidential election where an "independent" (scare quotes intentional) Electoral Commission decided in favor of Hayes. --Jayron 32 11:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately, if the Electoral College has not determined a winner by Dec. 14 (ie the first Monday after the Second Wednesday) then the courts no longer matter... the Constitution says that the election goes to Congress. The President is chosen by the House of Representatives and the Vice President is chosen by the Senate. Blueboar (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way... if the election does go to the House, Trump is favored to win. This is because the Representatives don’t vote individually, but by State delegations... with each State then getting one vote for President. Republicans control more State delegations. Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, we won't know for sure who control more state delegations until about the same time as the presidential election as this is when the entire House is also up for election. While Republicans may control more State delegations now, it will be the new Congress voting. See our article linked by Jayron or this [1] Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This paper by the Congressional Research Service, who looked into the matter in 2016, states "A contingent election would be conducted by a newly elected Congress, immediately following the joint congressional session that counts and certifies electoral votes. This session is set by law for January 6 of the year following the presidential election, but is occasionally rescheduled." It will be the newly elected House. Based on my count, there are 22 Democratic Majority delegations currently, 27 Republican Majority delegations, and one split Delegation (Michigan). Realistically, the Democrats need to flip four of those during the election to make a House presidential election go their way, and they could do so in Michigan (even split), Florida (odd number of members, 1 member disadvantage), Wisconsin (needs to flip 2 seats) and Pennsylvania (needs to flip two seats). There's an outside chance to flip North Carolina as they are working from new court-mandated election district maps. Mathematically at-large states with one member would be the easiest to flip, among these MAYBE Montana, as they have a Democratic Senator and Governor right now. --Jayron 32 16:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not always very clear what that means. In the case of "the Electoral College votes are all in, unchallenged and accepted, and we still don't have a clear winner", then the vote goes to the House of Representatives under the established constitutional procedure under the Contingent election procedure. This can ONLY happen where there are at least 3 candidates splitting the Electoral College vote. However, that is not what is being proposed here. What is being proposed here is "the Electoral College votes are not all in and certified because the election in at least on state is uncertain due to legal challenges surrounding the official vote totals". THAT has happened twice before, and on one of the two times (1876, see above for link) the actual result was not certified until only a few days before the scheduled start of the term. The vote was not thrown to the house because there were only two possible results: the disputed votes would either be thrown to Hayes or to Tilden, and both of those outcomes would have resulted in a clear majority. Thus, if the same thing were to happen again (and as I implied earlier, past results are no guarantee of future performance), we could blow past December 14 with no clear winner, and as long as results are in dispute, it will not go to a House vote. --Jayron 32 14:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't actually require a three-way split to have the election go to the House with all electoral votes counted and undisputed. It could also happen in a two-way tie. This has never happened, but it's a non-negligible possibility. --Trovatore (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are an odd number of electors. That's not how odd numbers work. I'd like to see you get an even split among an odd number of electors, where ALL of the votes only go to one of two people. Which elector are you sawing in half? --Jayron 32 16:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are 538 — 435 representatives, 100 senators, plus 3 votes for DC. --Trovatore (talk) 17:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you are correct. I am an idiot, and should be ignored in most cases and ridiculed in the rest. Carry on. --Jayron 32 17:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the number of Electors is odd or even, there's no guarantee that two candidates will get all of their votes. —Tamfang (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cases reach the Supreme Court as petitions to overturn a decision of a lower court. If there is a deadlock, the decision of the lower court stands, as happened e.g. after the death of Scalia; see Merrick Garland Supreme Court nomination#Effect of vacancy on rulings. --Lambiam 13:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Election contests don’t originate in the Supreme Court as far as I know (this is a distinction between the federal government and many state governments that provide election cases can originate in the state Supreme Court). And even then, when you consider how election contests work, the complaint isn’t “this election is fraudulent,” but “votes in this precinct were miscounted,” or “ballots were destroyed in this district.” And if there’s widespread fraud? You need to bring individual suits alleging specific facts. Thus, when a case or collection of cases hit the federal Supreme Court, affirmation by an equally divided court is a possibility. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And on the off chance someone's interested in what happens with an equally divided court in original jurisdiction cases, there may not be a rule. See Michael Coenen, Comment, "Original Jurisdiction Deadlocks", 118 Yale L.J. 1003 (2009). My own instinct is that an original jurisdiction deadlock ought to result in a ruling favoring the nonmoving party, but OJ cases are so uncommon and so specialized, I wouldn't be surprised if there are good arguments against that. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 16:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution says the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction "in all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party". I would take the President to be a "public Minister" here; is that not so? --174.89.48.182 (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the sense that it renders a case where the President is sued within the Court’s exclusive original jurisdiction. As far as I know the current understanding of the Court’s original jurisdiction is that there are few if any cases that would be exclusively subject to that original jurisdiction. As a matter of practice, the President is routinely sued in his official capacity in the federal district courts. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In such a scenario, the decision of the lower court will remain legally binding and valid, no? So, for instance, had the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) been deadlocked 4-4 in Bush v. Gore, then the decision of the Florida Supreme Court ordering a new recount would have been upheld, but without creating any new legally binding SCOTUS precedents since there would have been no majority SCOTUS opinion (which I believe is required in order to create a new legally binding SCOTUS precedent, no?). Futurist110 (talk) 21:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The phrase is “affirmed by an equally divided court”, and it means that the outcome from the lower court is undisturbed, and the opinion of the Court is not binding precedent (but do not mistake it as useless or non-citeable as many nonprecedential appeals court opinions may be, there are some very important 4-4 decisions, such as, off the top of my head, Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court, though the principle articulated therein is accepted as having died with Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court). 199.66.69.67 (talk) 23:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought; thanks! Futurist110 (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of "the first Monday after the second Wednesday" [in December] appears to be that it allows a constant 41 days from election day (which is the Tuesday after the first Monday in November). 2A00:23A8:4306:5D01:8097:1643:48EF:56C9 (talk) 11:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For Democrats an outcome where Trump would win when the popular vote results in the States would have given Biden a victory in the Electoral College, is way outside their red line. What will happen in such a case is that the House will intervene and declare Biden the winner (assuming that by all reasonable accounts he won the popular vote). If the courts nevertheless declare Trump the winner on procedural grounds (if e.g. legislatures have appointed electors for Trump despite the results of the popular vote), then Congress won't accept that ruling. The House will instead start the formal procedure of impeaching all the judges that ruled that Trump should be declared the winner. If due to a formally inconclusive result a vote should be held in the House, then Pelosi will block that vote. And just like Trump would have (ab)used ancient procedures to let legislatures bypass the local popular votes, Pelosi can also issue subpoenas for Trump officials and instruct the sergeant at arms to start arresting them when they ignore the subpoenas instead of asking the courts to enforce the subpoenas. Such a detention by the House cannot be overturned by the courts. The courts may rule against a detention but the House can always ignore such a ruling, especially if they believe that the courts have been compromised by pro-Trump judges and an impeachment procedure against those judges is underway. Count Iblis (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Impressionists

Where on Avenue de Clichy in Paris was The Café that Manet and Degas among others assembled? Is there a known door number? Does a café still exist there? Is this a good/nice part of Paris? Thanks 86.186.232.90 (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Café Guerbois, is that the one you mean? The French Wikipedia article gives its street address as "9-11, grande rue des Batignolles (actuellement 9, avenue de Clichy)". Google Street View has photos of the place, if that's the correct address, but apparently no café currently at the same number. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to this site, there is now a group of small shops at the spot of the former Café Guerbois. Google Maps street view shows nothing particularly interesting there. How good or nice the area is depends on what you are interested in. It is certainly not a rundown area, but the points of interest to tourists are relatively sparse. The Montmartre Cemetery is quite close; Degas is buried there, as are Édouard André and Émile Zola, both also habitués of the Café Guerbois. This is a few kilometres north of the northern bank of the Seine where among other things the Louvre and the Centre Pompidou are located. Some people prefer the atmosphere of the Rive Gauche, the area south of the southern Seine bank. If you have no issue walking, many interesting thinks are within a one-hour walking distance, but it is not the best centrally located spot. However, unless you're in the suburbs, you can easily get around by metro. --Lambiam 12:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The article in it:wp refers to Il Café Guerbois sito al numero 11 del viale di Batignolles, oggi Avenue de Clichy.

With the disclaimer that I don't speak Italian, I translate that as

"The Café Guerbois sited at number 11 of the Avenue of Batignolles, now Avenue de Clichy."

From that I deduce that there has been a street-name change, and that the French word actuellement, in addition to any other meanings it may have, means "now". 92.19.65.159 (talk) 13:33, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a more nuanced translation would be "currently", but essentially yes. Oggi, by the way, means "today". --Trovatore (talk) 17:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early on in my Ph.D., one of my fellow students was prepping for the French exam, which consisted in translating a math paper, and he was practicing by translating other papers. He had never studied French, and he kept getting stuck on the word maintenant. What exactly was the argument "maintaining"? My French has never been great, but I had taken it in high school, so I recognized maintenant as just meaning "now", more of a verbal tic than anything central to the proof in question. But of course etymologically it does exactly mean "maintaining", which I had never noticed before. --Trovatore (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC) [reply]

And here's confirmation from fr:Avenue de Clichy:

Indiquée sur le plan de Deharme de 1763, elle s'appelait précédemment :

« chemin de Clichy » ;
« grande rue des Batignolles » (RD No. 13) entre la place de Clichy et l'avenue de Saint-Ouen ;
« avenue de Clichy » entre l'avenue de Saint-Ouen et le boulevard Berthier (RD No. 14).

"Followers of nouvelle peinture often met at the Café Guerbois ( 11 , Grande - rue de Batignolles , today Avenue de Clichy )" [2] 176.227.136.190 (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sad really, were I to go to Paris, and I am sure I will at some point, this Café would have been my number one destination for a drink (absinth?) and a meal and perhaps a fiery debate. This could be a great tourist attraction and a great restaurant business if opened and run with some rustic and pseudo-authentic atmosphere. Thanks Team 86.186.232.90 (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Others are also gone, such as La Nouvelle Athènes. If you don't feel that art ended with impressionism, you can still visit La Palette and La Rotonde. For a philosophical debate after

n

glasses of absinthe, go to Café de Flore or Les Deux Magots (or both). --Lambiam 18:54, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A tie vote in the Israeli Cabinet

What happens if there is a tie vote in the Israeli Cabinet in regards to some issue or question? Futurist110 (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]