Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 July 29

= July 29 =

Silsby Spalding year of graduation
I can find a bunch of sources saying he attended Pomona College and a photo of him on campus from 1904, but not his year of graduation. Any ideas? &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 07:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * What about asking the college library (once they open for the day) (either the email at or the phone/chat at ). They should be able to do a quick alumni database search, and since librarians love this kind of historical question, might even provide a yearbook scan for your reliable source. I did search his name on the pomona.edu domain, but no hits, and it seems the yearbook is not digitized. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 14:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * He became a member of the Lambda Sigma chapter at Stanford University in 1910. If he did not take a wanderjahr but went straight to university and joined Lambda Sigma in his freshman year, he would have graduated from Pomona College in 1910. That would make him 24 years old at the time – a bit at the old side, but not exceptional. --Lambiam 22:10, 29 July 2020‎ (UTC)

What if Biden doesn't debate Trump?
It seems obvious that Biden struggles with conferences and interviews. If his team decides that debating is a suicide mission, what would happen? Would Trump "debate" alone? Or would all the events be canceled? Would that have a big impact on the voters' choice? 42.113.93.38 (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe Trump could choose to debate alone. I don’t want to opine on what voters would think because that’s nowhere near my area of expertise. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 15:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Another potential scenario is that the Republicans in the Commission on Presidential Debates insist on conditions that are unacceptable to the Democratic candidate and then blame the latter for a no-show. Trump could follow the act of Clint Eastwood at the 2012 Republican National Convention and debate an empty chair. But would the TV networks be inclined to broadcast this? --Lambiam 21:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems obvious that Trump struggles with just about everything, so what's the problem? (Seriously, who thought it was a good idea for old, old, old geezers to be candidates for POTUS?) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering how often Trump changes his mind, he could debate himself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Everyone is welcome to correct me if I’m wrong, but my guess is that Joe Biden has many, many more debates under his belt than does The Trumpet. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * There's obviously no legal requirement for debates to happen. I'm not sure why they do. They never seem to bring anything new to election campaigns. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Tell that to Richard Nixon. Visually, JFK mopped up the floor with him in their televised debates (the first ones according to Kennedy–Nixon debates), although apparently radio listeners thought that Nixon had won. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:23, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I may have been being over-idealistic, and thinking elections were about policies. HiLo48 (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * In Britain it's not been unknown for people to propose that if a candidate declines to show up other people from their party or ideology be offered the chance to appear to provide an alternative viewpoint. This is controversial, of course (the person may not have the same message as the real candidate, and given that they agreed to do it they're likely to be a dissident from their side), and may just be a bluff by the TV company. In two debates in 2017 then-Prime Minister Theresa May sent other people to debate for her, likely either because she wasn't a great debater or because she thought it would decrease viewers; the fact that this seems to have backfired makes me think it won't happen again, though. (In Britain debates are not an established part of the culture as in the US: every recent election has been marked with someone trying to weasel out of attending, or arguing over format (not entirely unfairly: with three-four nationwide parties at time, and more regional ones, you can't easily have a one-on-one US-style debate). Past tricks have been to insist that all the minor parties be invited (meaning nobody really gets the chance to say much), insisting that the event is below your dignity and sending a stand-in, demanding the format be separate consecutive one-on-one interviews, or even insisting you won't attend (your main opponent also declines) and then on the day of the debate making a surprise appearance and ensuring you're there and your main opponent isn't. But all the last four elections have ended up with real debates in the end, and we've never ended up with a situation where one politician gets the whole night to themselves touting their strengths.) Blythwood (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that having a one-sided debate in the UK might be a breach of the statutory impartiality rules, overseen by Ofcom. We don't have a setup here where one channel can favour a particular political party, they have to present a balanced overview. Alansplodge (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Teflon Don does not debate! Seriously. He talks over, interrupts, degrades, insults, etc. There would not actually be ant debating. IF the two do get together, Biden's best strategy would to focus on empathizing with Teflon Don ("It must be so hard for you when Dr. Fauci is more popular than you are" "What is it like to be viewed as such a failure with your response to the COVID 19?" etc). Put Trump on the defensive and let him squirm. Don't get sucked in by his insults (ie Trump calls him Sleepy Joe, respond with "It's hard for you right now, isn't it Mr. President? Otherwise you would not resort to name calling like a child"). Bottom line: there would not really be a debate cause Teflon Don is incapable of it. 216.223.104.13 (talk) 16:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Expulsion of non-citizens from Congress Poland, circa 1890
In the course of genealogical research, I've come across many casual references to the expulsion of "foreign" (non-Imperial Russian, I suppose) citizens from Congress Poland, with the examples I can find occurring around 1890–95. (The examples I've come across were Jewish Austria-Hungarian nationals—Rabbis from Galicia—but there is nothing in the source material suggesting that this expulsion targeted them uniquely.) My questions are: Thanks! הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 15:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Are there sources (contemporary or otherwise) that describe this occurrence as a whole: the legal basis, and its implementations and consequences?
 * 2) Where can I find information on how citizenship was defined at that time in Congress Poland?
 * ... basically, the approximate Polish analogue of the Prussian deportations of the same era. הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 16:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

British Empire
As we all know, the British Empire collapsed/ceased to exist in the late 1900s. What was the last colony/territory they acquired before this happened, and when did they get it? Heyoostorm (talk) 19:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you mean by “territory”... If you count League of Nations mandates, then the last additions to the Empire were the former Ottoman provinces in the Middle East (Palestine, Trans-Jordan and Mesopotamia - today: Israel, Jordan and Iraq), and several former German colonies in Africa and the Pacific... all acquired in 1918. Blueboar (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The last British territorial acquisitions were the League of Nations mandates. Although not technically colonies (we were supposed to be just looking after them for the benefit of the locals), they were effectively administered as such. If you exclude those, the New Territories of Hong Kong were obtained in 1898 from the Empire of China on a 99-year lease. When the lease ran out in 1997, there wasn't much option but to give the whole of Hong Kong back to China on a promise of nice behaviour. That didn't last long. The rest of the bits and pieces with their start-dates are at Crown colony, however many of them were under some form of British control before they became official colonies. There are a few left that we now call British Overseas Territories, which sounds better. Alansplodge (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * What about Rockall (1955/1972)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockall --Morinox (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Although that is claimed as an integral part of the UK rather than a colony or overseas territory. Alansplodge (talk) 09:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * According to British Antarctic Territory, the UK claimed Enderby Land in 1930 before transferring it to Australia a few years later. --Amble (talk) 20:59, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The article Australian Antarctic Territory states: "The territory's history dates to a claim on Enderby Land made by the United Kingdom in 1841, which was subsequently expanded and eventually transferred to Australia in 1933." So was the 1930 claim a renewed one? Curiously, the article Enderby Land itself does not mention any claim by the UK, even though it has a section § Nation state claims. --Lambiam 06:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the lede says that, but then the history section has it differently: "The United Kingdom first claimed Victoria Land on 9 January 1841 and then claimed Enderby Land in 1930. In 1933, a British imperial order transferred most of the territory south of 60° S and between meridians 160° E and 45° E to Australia." --Amble (talk) 08:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)


 * If we're excluding the League of Nation's mandates, I think candidates as the newest British colonies would be the the various south-Atlantic islands it formally claimed in 1908, including the South Sandwich islands, South Orkney Islands, and South Shetland Islands. -- Jayron 32 14:35, 31 July 2020 (UTC)