Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 May 30

= May 30 =

Out-of-state MN rioters
According to MN governator Tim Walz, 80% of last night's Minneapolis rioters were not from Minnesota. I've seen that in a few other news articles too. Anyone know where they were supposed to come from? There were 1000s of them, right? An invasion force from Wisconsin or Iowa? The North Dakota Freedom Militia if there is such a thing? Some kind of giant prison breakout in Canada surging over the border to fill a chaos vacuum? Would everyone have to have travelled by car, because of Covid lockdown affecting public transportation? Or is he counting every MN resident who wasn't actually born there as an out-of-stater? My working theory is that Walz's claim is just made up, but I don't have a source for that. Thanks. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:6543 (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The actual quote is: "I think our best estimate right now that I heard is about 20% is what we think are Minnesotans and about 80% are outside". As far as I can tell, no supporting details have been released so there's probably no point in speculating here. Note that Reference desk/Guidelines say: "The reference desk is not a place to debate controversial subjects". Alansplodge (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I hadn't considered the matter controversial since despite my personal skepticism, nobody else seemed to be expressing doubt about it.  I do see some stats now though, and I heard someone on TV claiming (on what evidence, I don't know) that there was coordinated activity originating in neighboring states. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:6543 (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Apologies, it seems your hunch may have been right; "St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter on Saturday walked back a prior claim that all those arrested in city riots a day earlier were from out of state, reportedly saying he was given inaccurate police data".  Alansplodge (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Prevagen
We have a redirect article for Prevagen, here: Aequorin. It says that -- as we speak -- there is an ongoing lawsuit that the company engages in false advertising, claiming that the product helps with age-related memory loss. Yet, I see this commercial on TV every single day (in the USA), claiming exactly that: "that the product helps with age-related memory loss". How is that? During a trial / litigation, wouldn't the TV commercial be prohibited? Or does everything just go on as normal -- status quo -- until the trial is over and a verdict delivered? Seems strange that "they" (whoever "they" are) would allow the TV commercial to currently air, when the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) brought a lawsuit on this very issue. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * That would be up to the judge. The judge could order a halt to advertising while the lawsuit proceeds, or the judge could allow the advertsing to continue until the suit is resolved and only order the stopping of advertising if the claim is proven.  RudolfRed (talk) 21:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, OK. But, doesn't the attorney for the plaintiff -- the FTC -- have some sort of obligation to "protect the consumer"?  Isn't that the whole purpose of that agency?  Don't they have some sort of legal duty to "demand" (or, at least, request) that the TV commercial be stopped (in the interim)?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * They may have asked and been denied, considering that the lawsuit was dismissed once before. You would need to check the court records or maybe the attorney's or FTC's website to see what interim remedies have been asked for.  Otherwise, we are just speculating. RudolfRed (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks!   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)