Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:03, 28 November 2020

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

November 21

New York results for 2020 US presidential election

Only 84% reported, far behind any other state. According to ABC, Westchester county is only 54% in, but there are low-reporting counties all over the state, rural and urban, leaning red and leaning blue. Anyone know what's taking so long? — kwami (talk) 01:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Purely conjecture, but I'd guess it's A. a lawsuit by the Trump campaign, B. equipment failure (a system bug or broken counting machines), or C. both. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{please ping me} 04:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good guesses, Squeeps10, but incorrect. New York has some really strange election laws. The first date that local election boards can start counting absentee ballots is one week after the election, and some boards did not start counting until Monday, 13 days after the election. When absentee votes were rare, it didn't matter much. During the pandemic, the absentee vote increased dramatically. Here's a New York Times article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up Cullen328. Pinging Kwamikagami with answer. Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{please ping me} 05:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! — kwami (talk) 05:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you're welcome! Squeeps10 ^{Talk to me}_{please ping me} 05:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Yawk is da centa of the frickin' univoise. It can take as long as it likes. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme guess. The Bronx? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:37, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no borough accent actually, there are different New York City accents like Mayor Bloomberg's, Puerto Rican and AAVE that are only boroughy by stereotype. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if it was the Bronx or Brooklyn, but every American World War II movie had to have someone from one or the other (but never both); it was like a Production Code requirement. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2% of Americans lived in one of these tiny counties back then, now they're barely over 1%. Also lots of sons and grandsons of Italian or Jewish, Eastern European etc. immigrants back then, or people who immigrated as children before immigration was semi-banned in the 1920s, maybe they were overrepresented in Axis-fighting infantry. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's an old trope. The hero was tall, tow-headed, and spoke in a roughly midwestern accent and the sidekicks in his unit always included the big dumb hick farm boy with a southern accent, and the short and fast-talking Brooklyn-accented car thief. They talk about it briefly in the documentary American Tongues, which is still worth a watch today as an accessible overview of American sociolinguistics. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Engraving

The image of George Washington on the current one-dollar bill is based on a painting by Gilbert Stuart. The painting is oil on canvas. The image on the bill is an engraving. The creator of the engraving is not mentioned, nor the date it was created, or the medium that was used.

Evidently it was done by an unknown engraver at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. It is a beautiful work with tiny little dots and dashes following gently curving lines. I notice the direction of the lines is somewhat arbitrary. There are many engravings of people done this way. What is the name of that style? Indexguy (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a type of "intaglio" (see [1] etc)... AnonMoos (talk) 21:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that source it refers to the printing method, producing fine ink ridges. I think the name for the style being sought is "contoured hatching". --Lambiam 09:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 22

Inserting a footnote onto Wikipedia

I want to insert this footnote:

From footnote 5 on pages 16-17 of this book: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Documents_historiques_in%C3%A9dits_du_XIVe_s/S3TSAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=jean,+batard+de+bourbon+rochefort+%22fils+de+louis+i%22&pg=PA16&printsec=frontcover : "5 Le P. Anselme et les autres généalogistes de la maison de Bourbon, y compris les modernes, tels que M. Dussieux (Généalogie de la Maison de Bourbon, Paris, Lecoffre, 1869, p. 4), attribuent la paternité de Jean de Bourbon, seigneur de Rochefort, à Pierre Ier, second duc de Bourbon, fils de Louis Ier. Leur erreur est certaine ; ils se sont trompés d'une génération. Jean était le fils naturel de Louis Ier, premier duc de Bourbon, et par conséquent le frère de Pierre Ier. En effet, Jeanne de Bourbon, femme de Guy VII, comte de Forez, et fille de Louis Ier, premier duc de Bourbon, le nomme « notre chier et bien aimé frère, notre frère naturel » dans la donation qu'elle lui fit, en avril 1363, du château de Beçay-le-Guérant (Arch. nat., Bourbons, p. 1438. n° 3090). Marie de Hainault, veuve du duc Louis Ier, l'appelle « notre bien aimé Jehan de Bourbon, chevalier, fils naturel de nostre cher seigneur », dans une donation qu'elle lui fit également en 1351 (ibid.). Stevert ne s'y est pas tromgé [sic] (Hist. des ducs de Bourbon et des comtes de Forez. La Mure, nouvelle édition, II, 32, note). En revanche. Stevert conteste que le bâtard Guy de Bourbon, sire de Classy, ait été le fils de Pierre Ier comme l'ont assuré Anselme (Grands Officiers de la Couronne. Baluze (Hist. de la Maison d'Auvergne, I) et d'autres, sans en fournir de preuves. On voit par là qu'il y avait plus d'un inconnu à dégager, même après les travaux des plus grands généalogistes de la maison de France." English translation: “5 Father Anselme and the other House of Bourbon genealogists, including modern ones like Mr. Dussieux (Genealogy of the House of Bourbon, Paris, Lecoffre, 1869, p. 4), attribute the paternity of Jean de Bourbon, seigneur de Rochefort, to Pierre I, second Duke of Bourbon, the natural son of Louis I. They are clearly mistaken ; they erred by one generation. Jean was the natural son of Louis I, first Duke of Bourbon, and as a result the brother of Pierre I. Indeed, Jeanne de Bourbon, the wife of Guy VII, Count of Forez, and daughter of Louis I, first Duke of Bourbon, called him “our dear and beloved brother, our natural brother”, in the gift she made out to him, in April 1363, of Beçay-le-Guérant Castle (National Archives, Bourbons, p. 1438, nr. 3090). Marie de Hainault, widow of Duke Louis I, called him “our beloved Jehan de Bourbon, esquire, natural son of our dear lord”, in a gift she made for him also in 1351 (ibid.) Stevert was not mistaken (History of the Dukes of Bourbon and of the Counts of Forez, La Mure, new edition, II, 32, note). In contrast, Stevert disputes that the bastard Guy de Bourbon, sire de Classy, could have been the son of Pierre I as Anselme (Great Officers of the Crown, Baluze - History of the House of Auvergne I) and others have claimed, without providing any proof. One can thus see that there was more than one unknown fact to be cleared up, even after work by some of the House of France’s greatest genealogists.”

--to the end of the "Marriage and issue" section in the article Peter I, Duke of Bourbon. Just how exactly would I do that? Futurist110 (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's very rarely necessary, and far more often unhelpful, to dump long quotations into references or footnotes. I would respectfully suggest giving a straightforward citation to the footnote as you would for any offline source, and since this is a public domain book, linking to an actual repository instead of Google Books. For instance, HathiTrust ([2]). 199.66.69.13 (talk) 20:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion, but I still want to make the English translation of this footnote available on this Wikipedia article since this book is in French. Futurist110 (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should not do that. --Viennese Waltz 20:43, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Futurist110 (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Citation needed. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are we not allowed to translate foreign-language sources onto Wikipedia so long as we do it in good faith? Futurist110 (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110, see WP:PLAGIARISM. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 22:05, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Futurist doesn’t seem to be talking about plagiarism. I see no indication that he doesn’t intend to provide adequate attribution for the quote. The issue is that dumping large block quotes in the citations is a poor stylistic habit. It is at odds with the practice of citing sources—if the claim requires verification, it may be checked by looking at the source. The fact that a translation of the source is provided doesn’t really help. If the translation provides more necessary detail than the text it supports, then the text it supports should be improved. If the translation provides detail excess to what’s needed for the article, it should be shortened until the previous sentence applies. An in-house translation requires no less (and arguably much more) editorial effort to check against the source. And if the quoted text provides some special je ne sais quoi that saying things in your own words can’t, then a quote should be in the text rather than a footnote. This isn’t Wikisource, and as far as I can tell this source’s specific wording doesn’t contribute anything special to the presentation of information. It looks to me as a case where WP:FQ’s recommendation against doing this should apply. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I certainly wasn't going to plagiarize since the relevant book is already cited in the relevant Wikipedia article ("Peter I, Duke of Bourbon"). So, you're correct in regards to this. I also understand the need not to have too much excessive information, but not everyone actually speaks French (let alone fluently) and thus one might think that it would be prudent to provide them with an English translation of what exactly this footnote (or at least its relevant part(s)) actually says, no? Else, they would have to do their own research in regards to this, and frankly, this strikes me as being a waste of time when this text has already been translated. Futurist110 (talk) 22:58, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source of the translation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xuxl. Futurist110 (talk) 01:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would think that would qualify as Original Research. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about simply extracting information from these sources and writing this information in English on this Wikipedia article? Futurist110 (talk) 09:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using what as a source for the English? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Faithfully translating sourced material into English [...] is not considered original research." "Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations by Wikipedians, but translations by Wikipedians are preferred over machine translations." --Lambiam 14:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides if a translation is "faithful" or not? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point is, or rather should be, that you don't need to put quotes (translated or not) into references in order for them to be valid. Non-English sources are valid references, and do not have to be translated on Wikipedia to make them valid. Where equivalent English sources exist, we prefer those, but where the only valid reliable sources are in a different language, you just cite the source as any other source. There is no need to quote or translate anything. A page number for print sources or a URL to the direct page for web-based sources is all you need to allow people to find the source. --Jayron 32 15:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 23

Is there any chance Trump could still win?

I did my calculations based on the article 2020 United States presidential election. According to the article, with 98% of the votes counted, Biden and Trump have 153,563,539 votes in total. That makes the estimate of all votes in total (including uncounted votes) approximately 156,697,488. If Trump gets every single remaining vote, he'll get a further 3,133,949 votes. He needs 6,026,163 more votes to win the popular vote, which he is not going to get.

Keep in mind I don't know very much about US politics. By the time I was old enough to vote, Finland had abolished the electoral college and gone to a direct popular vote. In the 1994 election, I voted for Martti Ahtisaari, who won the election. But that is beside the point.

So is there still any chance Trump could still win? JIP | Talk 01:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that it is the electoral college and not the popular vote which decides who wins. Georgia guy (talk) 01:25, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The popular votes within each state are supposed to determine how the states' electoral votes are supposed to be assigned. Trump is trying to subvert that process. So, yes, it's theoretically possible he could still win. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With Michigan having certified their election, and with the current administration now starting to engage in the normal transition process, that "theoretically" is now about as likely as my being elected as the next Pope. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Georgia guy points out, you seem to be misunderstanding how the electoral college works. Trump just needs to flip (or eliminate) enough states to take Biden below 270 electoral votes (or otherwise take Biden below 270 electoral votes). He doesn't need a plurality or majority in the popular vote to do that, and it definitely doesn't require 6M votes to achieve. I haven't looked lately, but I believe it could happen with less than 100k votes spread between key states, or by getting key state legislatures to decertify their results and not deliver electors (see the elections of 1872 and 1876). 199.66.69.13 (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JIP while Baseball Bugs and the IP are technically correct, there is no way Trump can convince enough legislators to force the Electoral College to flip. There is a chance he could win, but there's also a chance I could be hit in the face with a basketball as I type this. I have not been hit in the face with a basketball. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 01:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Careful. Don't give Rudy Giuliani any (more) nutty ideas. We don't want to find you slumped over your keyboard one day. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This[3] is a related concept. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna hang that above my desk. Thank you. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 21:30, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

199.66.69.13: "less than 100k votes spread between key states ..."

Just to put a number on that margin, according to the AP-reported election results as displayed by Google, the three closest states are Arizona (with 11 Electoral College votes) at Biden +10,457 votes (or +0.3% of the State's total vote), Georgia (16) at Biden +12,670 (+0.2%), & Wisconsin (10) +20,608 (+0.7%) -- totaling +43,735. Flipping (how?) just over half of those votes in each state, a total of 21,870 votes, would shift those 37 Electoral College votes to Trump resulting in a 269/269 tie (assuming faithful electors), for which the winner would be chosen between them (officially between the top three candidates who received the most electoral votes) by the House of Representatives with each state delegation voting en bloc for which the Republican Party holds (and more importantly, will continue to hold in the 117th Congress) a slim majority, presumably resulting in Mr. Trump's reelection.

But no, this isn't going to happen. -- ToE 13:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no chance that Trump could win. He's lost every single lawsuit he's brought alleging (without evidence) voter fraud. There's zero interest in state legislatures to subvert the popular vote in their states. The actual electoral college vote is a formalism, and while occasional bits of weirdness happen from time-to-time (see faithless electors), with a 74 vote lead, this is not something that is uncertain anymore, as it may have been in 2000, where the margin was razor thin and the difference came down to a few counties in Florida. Trump does not have any hope of, in two weeks, somehow flipping 37 votes from Biden to himself. Biden will win the electoral college vote. --Jayron 32 11:46, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What the Trump campaign needs is the number of certified electors for Biden to drop to 269, in which case the House gets to decide by a contingent election in which each state has one vote, which would mean an almost guaranteed victory.^[4] While not likely to happen, it is much more within the realm of possibilities than flipping 37 electors. It requires a sufficient number of state outcomes to remain contested till December 14. While the case in Pennsylvania was lost, the Trump campaign did appeal and will keep appealing until they win or the case reaches the Supreme Court, where it may stall, preventing the timely certification of already 20 of these 37 electors. This scenario may be repeated for other states; almost any two states where Biden won will do. Rather than giving Giuliani any ideas, I think this has been the game plan from day 0, as Giuliani himself has as much as admitted;^[5] consider also the unseemly haste in getting RBG's successor confirmed. --Lambiam 14:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexatious litigation of this type is not going to have any effect. The latest case in Pennsylvania was just summarily dismissed by federal district court: [6] meaning that there is only the Supreme Court. I've seen nothing that would indicate the Supreme Court intends to do anything differently. The presumption that because he nominated three justices, those three would decide in his favor is largely without merit. Both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have shown themselves to be independent of Trump at various times, and while Coney-Barrett has not had any substantive Supreme Court cases, I don't see where this wouldn't be a 9-0 rejection of the case. --Jayron 32 14:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Oh, it goes back farther than that, to the lead-up to the 2016 election, where Trump said it was rigged. He expected to lose, but he won, so he put Roger Stone's script ("Stop the Steal")[7] in cold storage for future use. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For educational purposes: the "true" election of the President of the United States occurs when the electors cast their votes, and then Congress meets in joint session to receive and tally said votes. The process is detailed in Electoral College (United States). There is no realistic chance of Trump being re-elected at this point. There are always fanciful scenarios of some massive conspiracy to rig the electors' votes, or him obtaining an alien mind-control device, or whatever. --47.152.93.24 (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a "true" election in the same sense that a law doesn't come into power in the UK without Royal assent: yes, there's a pro-forma thing that has to happen after the popular election, but it's entirely ceremonial at this point and there's quite literally no chance of it going anyway other than what is clearly expected. --Jayron 32 13:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In his heart of hearts, if not in his public statements, DJT knows this better than anyone. I can't think of any charitable explanation for his attempts to undo the result, other than delusion. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I have "charitable" in stock, but there's an explanation I've heard that at least makes it rational. The claim is that there are still die-harders contributing to his funds for the purpose of supporting his legal challenges, a portion of which actually go to the challenges, but another portion of which goes to retiring his campaign debt. If he were to completely drop the act, those contributions would presumably stop coming in.

I don't know whether this is true or not, but people are saying it. --Trovatore (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't address motivation, but as for allocation of donations: Donations under $8K to Trump ‘election defense’ instead go to president, RNC (Reuters, 2020-11-11). -- ToE 17:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If post-vote US election mechanisms were purely ceremonial, then the 2016 United States presidential election result would have been 306/232, not the 304/227/3/1/1/1/1 resulting from the faithless electors in the 2016 United States presidential election. Chiafalo v. Washington (2020) upheld the fines levied against the four Washington state faithless electors, but didn't change or invalidate their votes. (So Faith Spotted Eagle still shares with Ms. Clinton the distinction of being the first woman to receive an Electoral College vote for president.) However, the stage is not set in 2020 for the same sort of elector protest as happened in 2016, much less the much larger number of faithless electors which would be required to affect the outcome. -- ToE 17:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional cases of an ethnic group converting en masse from Christianity to Islam over the last 1,000 years?

Other than the people of Anatolia (the ancestors of present-day Turks), have there been any other ethnic groups who converted en masse from Christianity to Islam over the last 1,000 years? Futurist110 (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albanians and Bosniaks would fit the bill, right--but do any other ethnic groups actually qualify for this? I know that some Balkan peoples have Muslim minorities; for instance, the Bulgarians had Pomaks--but AFAIK groups such as the Bulgarians never actually converted to Islam en masse. Futurist110 (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is just outside of your date range, but the Muwallad of Al-Andalus (modern Spain and Portugal) converted essentially en masse in the 1000s AD. --Jayron 32 11:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the four khanates into which the Mongol Empire disintegrated in the 13th to 14th century adopted Islam. Of these, the (mostly Persian) population of the Ilkhanate was already majority Muslim, but this was not yet the case for the Chagatai Khanate and the Golden Horde. These khanates were multi-ethnic, though, and although some Turkic tribes in Central Asia had before converted to Nestorian Christianity, this was not practiced on a large scale. --Lambiam 14:39, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not exactly clear how and when the population of Anatolia became Muslim, but they probably didn't convert en masse all at once. There has been a lot of, well, "replacement" over the years, forced or otherwise... Adam Bishop (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Anatolia was not known as a stronghold of the official Byzantine government form of Christianity, anyway -- it had been an area affected by Paulicianism and Armenian monophysitism. Also, there was the classic "Sufi bait-and-switch", where the first wave of Islamic missionaries made few demands on converts, who only gradually become enmeshed in strict Islamic codes... AnonMoos (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the official Byzantine government form of Christianity (Greek Orthodox, after 1054?) never become widespread in Anatolia? Futurist110 (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Orthodoxy has never had quite the same emphasis on rigid top-down hierarchy found in the "modern" Roman Catholic Church. The regional churches are generally autonomous, though they've generally recognized the Patriarch of Constantinople as a "first among equals". See also Pentarchy. --47.152.93.24 (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110 -- Below is how Colin McEvedy explains it (Atlas of Medieval History), discussing the struggles of Sabellians, Arians, Nestorians and Monophysites. In an area of independent kingdoms, such as Western Europe, Christianity could be an integrating force, but within an empire where one form of Christianity was imposed from the top down by the central authorities, resentments against the imperial authorities were translated to the religious plane: AnonMoos (talk) 06:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The importance of these subtle [theological] arguments lies in the adoption of dissenting views by people at odds with authority, or by nations groping for a sense of unity. ...an attempt to secede from the Empire on the basis of 'Armenia for the Armenians' would have been unthinkable. But the central power could be indirectly challenged by adopting the local patriotic heresy"

Thank you! Futurist110 (talk) 22:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see also Caesaropapism. In the Eastern empire, the orthodox Church became intertwined and identified with the State. The Western Empire of course came apart, after which there were various competing Christian kings, lords, etc. Although the Western Church enforced spritual conformity, it needed to maintain a perception of not favoring any particular temporal leader to retain spiritual authority and the cooperation of state power. When this ceased for a while it was a bit of a mess. --47.152.93.24 (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who painted this ceiling please?

In the grounds of the Nymphenburg Palace in Munich, one of the pavilions is called the Badenburg. It's a royal bathing house and you can read about it here [8]. About half way down article you can see a picture of the ceiling decorated with paintings of monkeys. I'm trying to find out who painted this ceiling, as I'm not convinced it was Johann Baptist Zimmermann who painted the ceilings in the main house, which look very different in their style to me. All help appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎95.150.44.199 (talk • contribs)

This [9] book names one "N. Stuber" as the likely artist, adding that it was painted "in the style of Bérain". This might be de:Nikolaus Gottfried Stuber. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:18, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, it is a reconstruction by Karl Manninger, completed in 1986, replacing an original from 1720 by Jacopo Amigoni, which was destroyed by bombs in 1943. --Lambiam 18:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amigoni painted the ceiling in the ballroom. The monkeys in question are in the little cabinet in the east corner ([10]). Unfortunately OP's links are malformed, but I think they refer to this picture. I think this is actually a canvas (Leinwandgemälde), not a painted ceiling, and it may be of Chinese origin. --Wrongfilter (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christians of Jewish descent being murdered by the Nazis: Additional examples of this?

Which Christians of Jewish descent other than Edith Stein and Irene Nemirovsky were murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust? I especially (but NOT exclusively) want to focus on those who have Wikipedia articles of their own. Futurist110 (talk) 21:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Mischling#Prominent Mischlinge. Alansplodge (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They actually needed to get murdered for my OP here to work, though. Futurist110 (talk) 20:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

District of Columbia presidential electors

Where exactly do they cast their ballots? I couldn't find an answer to that anywhere!--Hildeoc (talk) 23:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're actually a DC elector trying to figure out where to go, I don't understand why your question is more urgent than anyone else's. And if you are a DC elector, relax; I think you have until 12/14 or something to figure it out. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: No, I'm not a DC elector … But it is "urgent" in a way to me because I have searched like the whole web, and now I'm beginning to go wild … — How come you don't find any information on that issue anywhere? I mean it's the goddamn national capital of the greatest nation – and the seat of the most powerful ruler (around whom the whole Electoral College thing revolves) – on earth we're talking about …!--Hildeoc (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then I've removed the "URGENT" from the thread title, perhaps I'm being too grumpy but I found it annoying.

The only electors who cast votes in DC are the three DC electors. All the others cast their votes in their respective state capitals. Do you mean which exact building the 3 DC electors vote? --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Do you mean which exact building the 3 DC electors vote?" — YES! Whoever knows it, please do provide a reliable source. (I couldn't find any pertinent information in the Code of the District of Columbia.)--Hildeoc (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This says, at the bottom, that it's at a ceremony in the Wilson Building. So it appears your dastardly plan of labeling this "urgent" has actually worked, in spite of me knowing better. I'm a sucker. In a desperate attempt to make you feel foolish too, I'll point out that I found this by literally typing "Where do the DC presidential electors vote?" It's like the 4th or 5th link. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: 1. I cannot access that site here (Europe). 2. Why do you speak of a "dastardly plan" of mine? 3. Why exactly do you claim that "plan has actually worked"? (Again, I have no access to that website …) 4. Is there any official, legal source for that information?--Hildeoc (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For #2: I'm being facetious. For #1, #3, and #4: I've lost interest. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be uncivil Floq. Hildeoc: for #1, the article says at the bottom: "The three ladies will cast their ballots for D.C. in the electoral college during a ceremony at the Wilson Building on December 14th.". For #3: I believe he was saying that even though he doesn't care, he looked up the answer to your question. For #4: The John A. Wilson Building is the city hall of Washington DC. It serves essentially the same functions as a state capitol would. That's why they meet there. The relevant law is Article II, Section I of the United States Constitution, which says, in part, "The Electors shall meet in their respective States...". There's nothing about them meeting in state capitols (or city hall in DC's case), but that has been the custom throughout history. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 00:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Squeeps10: Thank you so much for your kind and instructive reply! You have virtually released me from an endless odyssey. I'm very grateful to you. Best wishes--Hildeoc (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Hildeoc Feel free to ask here or my talk page if you have any more questions. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 01:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

”Uncivil”?! Good grief. —Floquenbeam (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It could be worse. In Daffy Duck Slept Here, Porky Pig called Daffy "unsanitary". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's a shockingly incorrect thing to call someone accused of discourtesy, and I feel your indignation keenly. The correct word is "incivil". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(to take off from Bugs' comment as well) I suppose incivil is better than insanitary. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 03:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz: Nope. The adjective is "uncivil", the noun is "incivility".--Hildeoc (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to our beloved Wiktionary, both words exist:

uncivil can mean discourteous or impolite, but that is only its secondary meaning. The primary meaning is savage, barbarous, uncivilized.
incivil has the reverse focus: the primary meaning is displaying a lack of courtesy; rude, impolite; and the secondary meaning is uncivilized, barbarous. Both meanings of incivil are marked as "rare". Well, not in this household. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For convenience: John A. Wilson Building, which is the headquarters of the D.C. municipal government. --47.152.93.24 (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 24

What's the origin of this story please?

There is an image that crops up again and again in European art through the middle ages, of a sleeping pedlar being robbed by monkeys. The earliest mention of it I can find is in the Decretales Gregorii IX and although I can't read the text, there are images of monkeys robbing a man while he sleeps. Then similar scenes appear on a vase in the mid 1400s [[11]]. Then Peter Van Der Heyden does an engravng after Pieter Bruegel the Elder of the scene, as does Claes Jansz. Visscher after Pieter Feddes van Harlingen around the early 1600s. And a version of it crops up in London in the 1660s being sold by Robert Pricke. The Dutch wikipedia page for Marskramer has a mention of it [12]. All the images contain the same motifs and themes, and some of them even have notes describing the scene, but nowhere can I find an origin of a folk tale or fable or song or any clue to the story's origin, or even a description of the story beyond the basics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.44.199 (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no provable origin for that motif outside of art history if I'm to believe Bonnie Young's statement that "A story of monkeys robbing a pedlar does not seem to occur in either classical or medieval literature" (p. 443), unless, as she says, it has developed out of a Classical story of a hunter trying to catch monkeys using weighted boots. Failing that it can only be said that it's a comment on human covetousness and dishonesty, monkeys being seen as a sort of parody of mankind, and being attracted by such bright, shiny objects as pedlars carry. --Antiquary (talk) 20:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Persian versions of ancient Greek names

While there are many examples of Grecised Persian names, like Xerxes (Xsayarsa), Mardonius (Marduniya), did the reverse thing happen, i.e. Persized versions of ancient Greek names? Or did Persians simply transliterate the Greek names instead (particularly during the Greco-Persian Wars)? Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 18:17, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have much Achaemenid Persian "literature" as such. What has survived is the Zoroastrian scriptures (often difficult to date -- to the degree that there's disagreement as to which millennium Zoroaster lived in), and various royal inscriptions, the longest at Behistun. AnonMoos (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The writing systems, Old Persian cuneiform versus the Greek alphabet, were sufficiently different that there would not have been a straightforward and simple transliteration. The Graecization of Persian names has two components: an adaptation to the phonemes of Ancient Greek, and the application of inflectional suffixes to fit the declensional paradigms of Ancient Greek, as in (Ionic) Xérxēs–Xérxō–Xérxēi–Xérxēn–Xérxē. Old Persian had its own phonology and was, like Ancient Greek, a highly inflected language with different declensions and lots of cases, so it is highly likely that the Persians would have done likewise. --Lambiam 10:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did the Soviet Union's other East Asian populations never become as large as the Soviet Union's Korean population did?

In 1989 (please use Google Translate for this), the Soviet Union had almost 439,000 Koreans but just 11,000 Chinese, almost 3,000 Mongols, and less than 1,000 Japanese:

http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/sng_nac_89.php

What exactly explains this extremely massive discrepancy? Why exactly did the Soviet Union's other East Asian populations never become anywhere near as numerous as the Soviet Union's Korean population became?

(And the situation for the Soviet Union's Vietnamese wasn't much better, with there only being 3,000 of them in 1989, roughly equivalent to the Soviet Union's Mongol population during this time and over 100 times less than the Soviet Union's Korean population during this time.)

Thoughts? Futurist110 (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Migration seems to be the best answer: ethnic Chinese would have found China much more attractive than ethnic Koreans (still) find North Korea. A better comparison might be Chinese and Koreans, ca. 1962-82. DOR (HK) (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, neither China nor North Korea likely allowed much free emigration between 1962 and 1982, so ... Futurist110 (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, no possibility of people crossing the border without legal permission? Not exactly the Berlin Wall level of security up there. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:23, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Futurist110: Have you given our article on Koryo-saram a read? I think you will find it a useful springboard to finding an answer to your question. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually I did. In fact, reading that article as well as an article by Jonathan Otto Pohl about this topic motivated me to ask this question. Futurist110 (talk) 00:09, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One reason is that many ethnic Koreans were effectively stateless and could not leave. Korea was under Japanese occupation from 1910 through the end of 1945, and divided after 1945. Koreans who were in the Soviet Union during and after World War II had no connection or documentation from either new Korean state. At most, they had documents from the Japanese administration of Korea, if even that, but the postwar Japanese government did not regard ethnic Koreans as having Japanese nationality or any right to immigrate. See for example Sakhalin_Koreans#Repatriation_refused. --Amble (talk) 23:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic Chinese in Russia seems to indicate that the number of Chinese was much higher than 11,000, though it does not give a figure for 1989.--Wikimedes (talk) 21:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 25

Have Eastern Orthodox Christians ever engaged in proselytization in large numbers?

Have Eastern Orthodox Christians ever engaged in proselytization in large numbers? If so, when and where?

The only recent case that I'm aware of this is the mass reconversion of Adjarians from Islam to Georgian Orthodox Christianity over the last 30 years, after the collapse of the Soviet Union and after Georgia regained its independence. Futurist110 (talk) 00:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what qualifies as large numbers, but there is a proselytizing Coptic Orthodox church in Bolivia... [13]. --Soman (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria is composed of Oriental Orthodox Christians as opposed to Eastern Orthodox Christians. Futurist110 (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Futurist110 (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent gender non-conforming politicians in Western republics before the last several decades?

Which prominent gender non-conforming politicians in Western republics were there before the last several decades? Futurist110 (talk) 21:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Beyer was the first openly transgender mayor and later Member of Parliament, according to her article, but that was in 1995 and 1999. Presumably you want earlier examples than that.-gadfium 21:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the farther back, the better! Futurist110 (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stu Rasmussen was America's first openly transgender mayor in 2008, but was openly gender nonconforming long before that. His political career also starts in the 1990s. Temerarius (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They sound like they're genderqueer, no? Futurist110 (talk) 21:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He could be genderqueer and transgender. Stu uses he pronouns and hasn't objected to being called, universally, a transgender person. I don't know specifically which words he uses to describe himself. He did once say "I'm a man who looks like a woman," which I'd say is more gender noncomforming, but again, his identity is whichever words he chooses and I won't talk for him. Temerarius (talk) 03:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Try Elagabalus on for size Futurist110. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 22:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They were an emperor, no? The Roman Empire was not a republic during their lifetime, was it? (FWIW, I was already well-aware of Elagabalus but specifically limited my question here to republics to exclude Elagabalus.) Futurist110 (talk) 00:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Premier of South Australia (equivalent to a state governor in the US) through the 1970s was Don Dunstan. A quote in his article describes him as having "lived as a sexually liberated bisexual man." There's a pic here showing him in his hot pink hot pants. HiLo48 (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 26

Former thrones that already have or are soon likely to have a succession dispute?

Which cases are there of former thrones (as in, currently non-existent thrones) already having or soon being likely to have a succession dispute? I could think of the dispute over the defunct French throne between the Legitimists, Orleanists, and Bonapartists, the dispute over the defunct Italian throne between the main House of Savoy male line and the more junior (cadet branch) Savoy-Aosta line (a dispute that will become even more exacerbated in the future since the main Savoyard line is going to run out of males sometime this century, given that Emanuele Filiberto of Savoy, Prince of Venice only has two daughters and no sons of his own--something that is not true of the Savoy-Aosta line, which already has two males (sons) born to Prince Aimone, Duke of Apulia in the 21st century), the dispute over the defunct Brazilian throne between the Petropolis and Vassouras branches of the Brazilian imperial family, and the dispute over the defunct Two Sicilies throne between Prince Pedro, Duke of Calabria and Prince Carlo, Duke of Castro.

However, which additional cases of this are there either right now or likely to be in the near future? Futurist110 (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The claims to the Kingdom of Jerusalem form a very tangled skein. --Antiquary (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the Russian throne has three claimants. --Antiquary (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting for both Jerusalem and Russia! Futurist110 (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Georgian throne is also an interesting case, as the two competing branches currently have a potential mutual heir. 58.7.142.132 (talk) 11:27, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting stuff! Futurist110 (talk) 00:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Variant flag of Belarus question

Got an interesting one here – I'm working on the Flag of Belarus as a part of going through early Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020. I'm trying to figure out which Vexillological symbol in Template:FIAV would be most appropriate for the Variant flag of Belarus (the second one in the infobox). Any suggestions would be appreciated here... Aza24 (talk) 21:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons has it tagged as historical, but perhaps the “not authorized to represent the group or country” would fit better given the article says “After 1995 the white-red-white flag has been used as a symbol of the opposition… most notably during protests after the 2006, 2010, 2015, and the 2020 presidential elections …. The flag is not officially banned from public usage, but is treated by the authorities as an unregistered symbol which means that demonstration of it ...can lead to arrests and confiscation[26][27]” I can’t read either source, but at least it is a sourced statement! 70.67.193.176 (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And When You've Paid the Bill, You're None the Wiser

There's an episode of Public Eye called "And When You've Paid the Bill, You're None the Wiser ". The title seems strangely familiar, but I know I've never seen the programme before. Is it a line from a song or poem perhaps? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a song or poem to my knowledge, but the sentence "That wealthy Miss Elbert will pay the bill and be none the wiser" appears on page 193 of volume 9 (March 1928) of Country Teacher by H H Bailey. 81.134.176.48 (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 27

Is there any online community collaborating on plagiarism exposé?

I remember hearing about a group belonging to scientific community checking on science articles for intellectual fraud. Is there any similar effort for humanities, like where a people can examine a doctoral thesis for its originality/fraud? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:F00A:208D:988C:CA7D:381F:927A (talk) 15:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Various plagiarism checking programs are available [14]. 81.134.176.48 (talk) 16:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That shoddy doc says nothing about what I raised. How can a institution of some standing have such a shoddy document as its policy? Point seven repeats point 6. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:F00A:208D:4CC9:D45B:57C5:544 (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably a deliberate copyright trap designed to spot fraudulent institutions that copy this document and try to pass it off as their own. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.26.5 (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the original poster? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:15, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Should I register as a user to be considered a valid person? Is it OK to just make use of the non-registered user's option to edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:F00A:208D:D0F:6016:A160:EBBB (talk) 18:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on how much confusion you want to cause. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unregistered users' posts are not inherently any more confusing than those of registered users. Neither are the posts of registered users who are not logged in. As long as they sign each post, which even registered users sometimes fail to do, and play by other rules, no problemo. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:48, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except when 3 users with 3 separate IP's make comments, it's hard to know if they are the same guy or impostors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around long enough that you should know that IPv6 addresses can jump all over the place Bugs. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 23:43, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you can't know whether the person answering the question whether they are one and the same is the OP or an impostor impersonating the OP, it is pointless to ask the question. --Lambiam 00:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The document linked to by 81.134.176.48 mentions "Turnitin or similar programmes"; "Turnitin" sounds like a medicine for nausea but is a software program for plagiarism detection; see here. I think this is what respondent referred to when they said, "Various plagiarism checking programs are available"; I don't think they meant the policy at the Graduate School of ICL. Of course, plagiarism is merely one form of fraud, one that is relatively easy to detect. There have been fraudulent claims of archeological artefacts, but unless the fraudster is a dunce, debunking these is generally not possible solely on the basis of the description in an article; it requires examining the artefact itself. Using someone else's original ideas (but not their texts) while presenting them as one's own is not detectable with current technology; it requires familiarity with the earlier work. It may be hard to establish, though, that the duplication is not the result of an independent reinvention, and there have been instances where the earlier publication stole in fact unpublished ideas of the author of the later publication. In any case, the peer reviewers are also supposed to check for originality; given the number of somewhat arcane specializations, it is hard to see how an online community would do better than specialist reviewers. I cannot readily imagine other forms of fraud in the humanities. --Lambiam 01:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 28

Picture of a chess queen

How come the image of a chess queen on a 2D image looks so different from a real chess queen?? Look at:

White queen

Black queen

and at:

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Possible moves of the queen

Why are they look so different?? Georgia guy (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a job for @Bubba73:. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't thought about it much, but the king and queen are represented by their crowns. A bishop is represented by the mitre. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in three dimensions, the height of a chess piece serves as an indicator of its importance (king > queen > bishop > knight > rook > pawn). That's missing when you remove the "height" dimension to get down to two. - Nunh-huh 03:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. A rook is more important than a knight or bishop, and a knight can be more important than a bishop. Makers of chess sets that don't know anything about chess make the rook small. In good sets, the rook is a little taller than the knight, but never as tall as the bishop. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"...Following the old rule, the height of the chess pieces should then...decrease in such a manner that if one drew a diagonal from the top of the king to a pawn, the tops of all the other pieces must be touched by this line."[15] fiveby(zero) 17:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How the chess piece called the queen is represented in computer imagery and in physical chess pieces is arbitrary, but strongly subject to social conventions. Please see Board representation (computer chess) for representation on the screen and Staunton chess set for the style of physical chess pieces developed in 1849 and now used in approved chess competitions worldwide. What both representations have in common for the queen is a symbol of a royal crown, but crown design is also arbitrary. If a chess set used in casual play has queens topped by the letter "Q" or a sphere or a triangle or a photorealistic 3D printed representation of Elizabeth II at age 26 or at age 94, then that is perfectly acceptable as long as both players understand that this piece is the queen. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's only a symbol.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 10:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These conventional symbols must predate chess-playing computers; they were used in chess textbooks when I was a lad; computers then struggled to play noughts-and-crosses. We have an article, Chess symbols in Unicode, but no clue as to the origin. Alansplodge (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Our History of chess article has a picture of some not too dissimilar symbols published in 1497 which is a LOT earlier than I was expecting. Alansplodge (talk) 14:06, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As some evidence of the link between symbol and shape, we see that most game diagrams prior to 1820 had employed as symbol for the Queen a closed crown. Roughly thirty years before the development of the Staunton design, chess books increasingly began to use a coronet for the Queen: this is a signal difference marking the Staunton design of chess sets for play apart from all other chess sets.[16], but see the footnote. fiveby(zero) 17:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 186: / Line 186: @@
 :One reason is that many ethnic Koreans were effectively stateless and could not leave.  Korea was [[Korea under Japanese rule|under Japanese occupation]] from 1910 through the end of 1945, and [[Division of Korea|divided]] after 1945.  Koreans who were in the Soviet Union during and after World War II had no connection or documentation from either new Korean state.  At most, they had documents from the Japanese administration of Korea, if even that, but the postwar Japanese government did not regard ethnic Koreans as having Japanese nationality or any right to immigrate.  See for example [[Sakhalin_Koreans#Repatriation_refused]]. --[[User:Amble|Amble]] ([[User talk:Amble|talk]]) 23:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
+:[[Ethnic Chinese in Russia]] seems to indicate that the number of Chinese was much higher than 11,000, though it does not give a figure for 1989.--[[User:Wikimedes|Wikimedes]] ([[User talk:Wikimedes|talk]]) 21:03, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
 =November 25=