Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 March 4

= March 4 =

Romanov
Other than the Mecklenburg siblings of Ivan VI and the future Peter III, who else was considered a viable Romanov heir for the Empress Elizabeth of Russia or were these the last of the family?--96.41.155.253 (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As noted at House of Romanov no one. The actual Romanov male lied ended with Peter II of Russia.  Later scions were cognatic descendants from female lines who adopted the name Romanov to be acceptable to Russians.  Under normal male-line descent, the Romanov line did not outlive Peter II.  The later Romanovs (excepting the empresses Anna and Elizabeth) were all of German houses, notably House of Holstein-Gottorp.  You'd have to go back to pre-Tsar members of the Romanov family.  Filaret, the father of the first Romanov tsar, who had no male children with issue other than Michael Romanov.  Filaret's father Nikita Romanovich had few children who may have had contenders for heirs to the line, the only one who would have lived long enough to have had children who may have contended would have been Nikita Romanov, but he had no legitimate heirs.  The article on Nikita Romanov lists other families who were even more distantly related, but at that point, it seems unlikely they would have inherited over the German lines, who were more politically connected and more powerful in the right circles.  -- Jayron 32 02:26, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Brunswick family and Peter of Holstein-Gottorp were the only descendants of Michael I of Russia still alive at the time. The 1613 national assembly entrusted Michael Romanov to rule the country, so the descendance of his cousins (in this case, second cousins) is sort of irrelevant. (By the way, Alexander Herzen was a male-line descendant of one of those cousins, and of Andrei Kobyla too). --Ghirla-трёп- 11:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. Alexei Razumovsky was rumored to have secretly married Empress Elizabeth and to have had offspring (see Princess Tarakanova), but this was never proven. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

National minorities and citizenship
It's common for people of one nationality to live in the country of another. For example the Austrian minority in South Tyrol, Italy. What citizenship rights do these groups have? Not just in my example but around the world. They obviously have the citizenship of the country they have been born and raised in. But is it common for them to also have citizenship of the country they identify with?

If they do, how is that done? How could Austria make sure it is only giving Austrian citizenship to the Austrian minority in Italy, and not to random ethnic Italians?--Quality posts here (talk) 05:38, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * One way is if both parents were born in Austria, but that would exclude third generation emigrants. The looser they set the restrictions, the "less Austrian" the average person who qualifies would be. StuRat (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * In most of the situations I can think of the minorities aren't emigrants, but natives who were conquered by the country they are not part of. Those Austrians were natives when Italy conquered that area in WW1. Or Hispanics in the southwestern USA who were conquered from Mexico in the 19th century.--Quality posts here (talk) 05:55, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The reverse can also happen. Russians colonized many nations that they conquered in WW2 or before, now many of those nations are independent, but retain their Russian populations. StuRat (talk) 06:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * So do any of those Russian minorities have access to Russian citizenship? What about other groups in similar situations?--Quality posts here (talk) 06:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * An interesting scholarly book is Russian Minority Politics in Post-Soviet Latvia and Kyrgyzstan, which as I recall discusses their citizenship status in those countries. In addition, the index has a section "Russia: Citizenship laws". Loraof (talk) 19:13, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Israel is an interesting case. See Law of Return.  Of course, there's is a special situation, as they need to find new Jews to keep the majority Jewish, or face becoming majority Muslim and losing control. StuRat (talk) 06:18, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * With almost 75 percent Jewish, that doesn't look like a serious problem at present. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'd say they see themselves as having serious medium-term concerns in this regard. Particularly the difference in birthrates between the two populations. Also, were Israel to annex the West Bank (the legalities would be complex, but not impossible, if done by consent of the residents), and was thus forced to enfranchise them, the whole demographic situation would dramatically change, and Muslims would make up nearly 50% of the population. Which is precisely one of the major factors which has stopped Israel going down that route. Not sure there's a huge pool of potential Jewish immigrants on the horizon, though. There have been a lot of French Jews coming in the last few years, as the Jews of France have perceived their situation to be deteriorating. The last big wave was around the time of the collapse of the Soviet Union, as the Iron Curtain crumbled. Eliyohub (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Dual citizenship may be a helpful article. StuRat (talk) 06:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Right of return despite the lead saying "to return to, and re-enter, their country of origin" which may lead you to conclude it's talking about where a person actually came from has quite a few examples of various laws which deal with ancestral national origin. It does not include Austria (or Italy for that matter) but does include Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Serbia, and yes even Russia. Some of these are just vague constitutional pronouncements and no info is provided on how it works in practive but you could probably use the info there to search for more specific info if there's a case that interests you. In addition since these talk about origin, even where more info is provided, it's often unclear how this works when it's not clear when or if the person's ancestors came from the country ot they just happen to be due to changing boundaries. Some others only provide it to cases where descent from a migrant is fairly recent, e.g. grandparents. Other countries seem to have specific cases for descendants of refugees or those who were expelled but not generally. Of course there are cases like the Rohingya people where despite according to most independent sources, being there for two or generally more generations and before the country they're living in even existed, they're frequently denied citizenship in what's likely their country of birth based on unsupported accusations they are illegal immigrants (or immediate descents of them) and they're also unwanted in the country they're accused of having illegally immigrated from. Nil Einne (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Several countries who expelled their Jewish residents decades or centuries ago are now offering citizenship to the exiles' descendants: see History of the Jews in Spain (last paragraph): "In 2014 it was announced that the descendants of Sephardic Jews who were expelled from Spain by the Alhambra Decree of 1492 would be offered Spanish citizenship, without being required to move to Spain and/or renounce any other citizenship they may have." In History of the Jews in Poland (fourth paragraph from the end of that section): "Poland is currently easing the way for Jews who left Poland during the Communist organized massive expulsion of 1968 to re-obtain their citizenship." These are two instances; there may be others with which I'm unfamiliar. -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Germany does the same. I just saw a documentary on how many ex-German Jews living in the UK are now taking up the offer, since they will then remain citizens of the EU, with all the benefits that entails, after Brexit. StuRat (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Spain and Portugal are 2 mentioned in the article I linked to above. Germany is mentioned but it seems to miss German Citizenship Project although I've now linked to it (actually I've also added brief details on paragraph 2 of the German Basic Law which was missed). Poland is mentioned but only the loose "Polish origins" clause although I've now added a seealso to the article on Polish nationality law which does mention the ability of Polish Jews forcefully deprived of their citizenship to regain it although suggest theres no specific legislation covering it. As mentioned, there are other cases of such losely worded origins clauses, I would hope they are generally intepreted to cover former citizens/residents (because some of them may have left because the concept of citizenship really existed) who happened to be Jewish, or more likely their descendants, but I don't know. Countries with grandchildren/grandparent clauses also tend to just cover all grandparents who were citizens. Nil Einne (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Catherine the Great had policies which still reverberate, such as the migration of the Volga Germans. From "Russian Germans and the Perestrojka" in History of Germans in Russia, Ukraine and the Soviet Union (NB caveats on its sources):


 * Legal and economic pull factors contributed to Russian Germans decision to move to Germany. They were given special legal status of Aussiedler  (exiles from former German territories or of German descent) which gave them instant German citizenship, the right to vote, unlimited work permit, the flight from Moscow to Frankfurt (with all of their personal belongings and household possessions), job training, and unemployment benefits for three years.
 * Carbon Caryatid (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

What was the 1st country to implement a system of proportional representation for their national parliament?
What was the 1st country to implement a system of proportional representation for their national parliament? (PR based on party vote % as opposed to MPs representing a geographic region.) --Gary123 (talk) 12:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ancient Athens had direct democracy and was also a city-state, not a nation-state. And the Roman Republic elected the executive branch leaders, not the Senate.  That leaves more modern democracies, such as Switzerland. StuRat (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * According to our article, Proportional representation, the D'Hondt method was used by some Swiss Cantons from 1890, but the first national parliament was Belgium (same system) in 1900. The UK Parliament used the single transferable vote system (STV) for the university constituencies from 1918, followed by Malta (1921) and the Irish Free State (1922). Alansplodge (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * By comparison, only the US House of Representatives uses proportional representation, not the US Senate. And even the House isn't all that proportional, as every state gets one Rep, no matter how small their population.  For example, Wyoming, with a pop of 586,107 gets one rep, while California, with a pop of 39,250,017 (67 times more), only gets 53 reps, not 67. StuRat (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Since you can't be bothered to read articles before commenting, no, the U.S. House of Representatives does not use proportional representation for voting. It uses single-member districts with a first past the post system of voting.  As noted at proportional representation "it is not possible using single-member districts alone."  Also, as noted at United States House of Representatives "By law, Representatives must be elected from single-member districts."  Please don't comment on questions "off the cuff" when you haven't properly educated yourself on the terminology involved.  This is twice in as many days when you've embarassed yourself by using words that you don't know what they mean.  -- Jayron 32 20:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That's exactly you just did in misusing the term false precision, and then attempted to hide it when I pointed out your error. As for this Q, I thought the OP meant the number of legislatures selected for each province/state/district are in proportion to the population.  The OP later clarified this by adding to the original post: .  Before that, it was unclear. StuRat (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Proportional representation is a well-established term in the electoral and political world, Stu, and imo it was reasonable not to link it in the question. You say it was unclear: it behoves you to get clear (i.e. do a little research) before you answer such a question, not just assume it means X and then focus on your (in this case, wrong) assumption.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  03:50, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It's a big world, Jack. Since proportional representation chiefly exists for the benefit of minor parties, but for practical purposes there are (most years) no significant minor parties in the US, it makes sense that Americans would hear little discussion of proportional representation. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair point. The fact remains that Stu acknowledged he was unclear what the question was about, but answered it anyway, based on his guess/assumption. That is contrary to the good practice we require, because it contributes to bringing the refdesks into disrepute, something we should all strenuously avoid at all times, even if it means putting our egos to one side now and then. --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:40, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Q's are often unclear, and may never be clarified, so the best we can do is state our assumptions of what they meant and answer that Q, with others doing the same with their set of assumptions. My population examples made it clear what my assumptions were.  StuRat (talk) 14:58, 7 March 2017 (UTC)


 * (EC) The OP's question seemed clear enough because as proportional representation makes clear, it refers to systems where "divisions in an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body. If n% of the electorate support a particular political party, then roughly n% of seats will be won by that party" and it doesn't contain a 'for other uses'. It may have been helpful for the OP to link to the article, but it had already been linked to by Alansplodge before your second reply so there was really no need for your confusion. When people use standard terminology, understood by everyone who actually discusses such things, respondents should familiarise themselves with what these terms actually mean before responding. Especially when the terms are not particular technical as is the case here. If there is some doubt over whether the OP is actually using standard terminology you should either seek clarification or make it clear you're assuming the OP is not using standard terminology but instead referring to something else.  To give another relevant example, it would be wrong for someone to say Australia uses proportional representation for their federal legislatures because they use Single transferable vote for both the Senate and House of Representatives. Although instant-runoff voting could be called STV, STV generally refers to cases where there are multiple representatives, hence why our article only considers that example. And IRV definitely isn't generally considered a proportional representation system. However it's generally accepted that the Australian Senate does use proportional representation despite the fact all states get 6 senators, including Tasmania with 518,500 people and New South Wales with 7,704,300 people meaning it's said not to have equal representation among its people or one vote, one value. And in case this is unclear, it's the Australian house of representatives that does not use proportional representation, despite the fact it mostly tries to adhere to "one vote, one value" in modern times and definitely does so far more closely than the Senate.  Nil Einne (talk) 05:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I imagine that most Americans would say "What the hell is 'first past the post'? What post?" —Tamfang (talk) 08:26, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

US general delivery postal addresses
I am doing some research on the legal aspects of general delivery postal addresses in the US. These are often the only postal addresses available to the homeless or to retirees living a nomadic lifestyle, living in a recreational vehicle and traveling from place to place.

In doing my research I have seen various claims that there exists a US federal law or court decision to the effect that general delivery postal addresses are legal/valid for first class mail, and that companies cannot require you to have a fixed postal address. Does such a law or court decision actually exist? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The authorities will regard these places as your permanent residence. 81.147.142.155 (talk) 20:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Guy Macon, I do not believe that there is any such federal law or court decision. I think I can speak fairly confidently that there is no federal statute to this effect (at least, not one that uses the phrase "general delivery"); there have been a great many court decisions over the years, so I suppose it's possible that there is some weird outlier.  Can you point to any of these claims?  It's probably best to ping me with your response to make sure I don't miss it.  John M Baker (talk) 16:22, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Allegations of wiretapping
What would happen to Obama if trump' s allegations against Obama of wiretapping turned out to be true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * We do not answer requests for speculation. -- Jayron 32 20:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)