Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:04, 29 December 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.

December 22

Why did the Indus Valley and Ganges Delta convert to Islam but not the rest of India?

Why did the Indus Valley and Ganges Delta (and to a lesser extent, territories on the Ganges further north) convert to Islam but not the rest of India, which remained either Hindu or later became Sikh (or, rarely, some other religion such as Jain or Christian)? Futurist110 (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Valley is closest by land and has a Khyber Pass. Not surprising. What's counterintuitive is why did they have such a strange pattern east of that area and south of the mountain barrier. China not having a high Muslim percentage if north southeast Asia doesn't isn't surprising but Indonesia is densely populated and far and was just as reincarnationist as them and became Muslim but not Lanka but yes most Indian Ocean islands good ships but not Philippines but yes Mindanao but not all of it I think but yes Ganges Delta but not Southeast Asian deltas. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Futurist110 -- the short answer is that Sindh was conquered by the Arab caliphate rather early (711 A.D.), while the area of Bangladesh had a large number of "tribals" until later than many other areas. Traditionally, tribals were assimilated to Hindu civilization by entering the caste structure near the bottom, and converting to Islam may have seemed like an attractive alternative. There were other "tribal" areas, but they were usually far inland, while East Bengal was more conveniently accessible by sea... AnonMoos (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. William H. McNeill expresses it this way: "Islam also won numerous converts in Bengal, where primitive peoples in the process of entering into the Hindu cultural world frequently preferred the religion of Mohammed to a Hindu system which placed them near the bottom of the caste hierarchy." -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And there weren't very many tribal peoples in central India? Also, what about the Muslim minority around the Ganges in northern India? For instance, in the United Provinces? Futurist110 (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read what I wrote above? -- "There were other 'tribal' areas, but they were usually far inland, while East Bengal was more conveniently accessible by sea." I could have added that many of the other areas were remote and hilly, while East Bengal was flat and threaded by numerous navigable river branches. Of course that's only an approximate impressionistic first-order explanation. I know very little about the other area you referred to, but it sounds like it would have been in the heart of the Mogul empire... AnonMoos (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did India's high population (higher tech than Europe right?) have anything to do with getting to part of India so quick then historical maps that look like trying to bite off more than you can chew? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what? Your idiosyncratic use of idiom here makes it hard to parse what you are trying to ask about. Can you clarify? --Jayron 32 11:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In 622 AD the caliphate had only just gained the territory of Makkah, Arabia and the boundary was close to it while only 89 years later the boundary was in what we moderns would call Pakistan. Then it took about a thousand years for the border to reach maximum extension in India even though ending strong conversation pressure couldn't have helped the side that's attempting a reconquest, stop or slowdown. I guess there might've also been goal-line stand-type effects at the end as Indians who didn't want to be under the Mughal Empire concentrated in the southern tip and had less miles of front to defend and fought harder. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, there's a LOT of misconceptions you have about India and its history, not to mention the fact that your insistence on "doubling down" on peculiar idioms and mixed metaphors leads me to believe that you're just fucking with me unnecessarily, especially since I asked you to ask your questions clearly. But whatever. If you want to learn more about the history of Islam in India, you'll read that article, follow links as they interest you, and become the autodidact we've all been rooting for you to become. If you're not, you'll keep doing what you always do. --Jayron 32 17:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right I shouldn't have hypothesized from what little I remembered from my history book in high school and what's on this thread. I know so little about Indian history that I shouldn't be talking. I was not implying that the caliph had secular power in India after whatever year it was when other empire(s) or sultanate(s) or state(s) took over. I had thought that you as a person with some knowledge of American football would've known what a goal line stand was but okay I shouldn't have used that idiom. Presumably Indians who didn't care which state they were in would stay where they were and the little bit at the bottom had at least one soldier from the Mughal part during times of war but I have no idea if mentioning them was undue weight. I shall go read the article and find out what really happened. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Mughal Empire. The first areas the Mughals conquered were in the Indus and Ganges plains. The first few Emperors were fervent Muslims, and really tried to push their subjects into mass conversion to Islam (with some success). This explains why there are more Muslims in those areas. Later Emperors, however, were more open minded when it came to the religion of their subjects... so, as the empire expanded to the south, fewer people felt pressured to convert. Hence more Hindus and Buddhists in central and southern areas. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Naval tactics

Are there historical examples when a warship, in order to avoid the enemy's broadside cannons or guns, aligned herself with that warship's stern or bow instead to shell in these directions? Did that tactics work? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crossing the T has nothing to do with penmanship. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In general, "raking" an opponent, i.e. firing along the length of the enemy's ship, was deemed a highly desirable situation in the age of sail, not only because of being largely out of range of the enemies guns, but also because ships at that time were relatively open, and a lot of heavy metal flying down at high speed through the crews and guns of the gun deck was considered an efficient way to reduce the combat capabilities of the target. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most famously, at the Battle of Trafalgar when HMS Victory raked the French ship Bucentaure through the vulnerable stern windows, killing nearly 200 of her crew. The most effective weapon for this was the short-range carronade; Victory's carronades were "double shotted" with a huge 68-lb round shot and a keg of 500 musket balls. See also Sailing ship tactics. Alansplodge (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's the poundage of max effectiveness for round shot size muzzle-loaded by hand? Is it higher in a fort where cannon weight isn't a consideration? (if you still had to lift the cannonballs with human muscles without pulleys etc) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carronades had a very short barrel and fired a shot at low velocity, designed for fighting at close quarters; major warships generally carried only two carronades, while they mounted 100 or more "long" guns. 68 lb was the largest shot in the British fleet in the age of sail. That equals 30 kg which even a skinny bloke like me can lift in the gym. The victory's long guns were 12, 24 and 36 lbs. With the introduction of rifled artillery in the 1850s, shells began to be too heavy to lift manually, so they were hoisted by a chains running through a block and tackle, which were then swung into position at the breech of the gun by means of an overhead rail like this. Alansplodge (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well they might not have reached the limit of handloading yet (especially with how many other things had to be done to reload) but couldn't continue forever and it couldn't have been far off if rifling the barrels for long shells made the ammo too heavy. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to nitpick, but while Victory carried different armaments through its lifetime, I don't think she ever carried 36pounders, which were not widely used in the RN at that time. At least at Trafalgar, Victory was armed with 32pounders on the lower gun deck (42pounders had fallen out of favour, because the extra weight was bad for rate of fire). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So they had reached a limit for full-length cannons. Every little bit like longer swabbing time and pushing it back time added up apparently. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's the smallest ship that's an even match for the best stern firepower ever made if the smaller ship was perpendicular to the stern the whole time and neither ship had any of the Age of Sail-ending revolutions like adding steam engines, metal armor, rifling and breeches? What about bows? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sailing warships rarely had more than two light guns positioned in the stern, called stern chasers, so it was a major faux pas to present your ship's stern to an enemy broadside. Not really sure if your question can be quantified, but for the smallest vessels employed with any success against major warships, see Gunboat War. Alansplodge (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So something that can only shoot 2 light guns at the same direction (which would be a damn small warship) would have equal firepower (if they could stay behind) but is much easier to sink but might have an easier target to aim at and officers' stuff is in the back so who knows. Maybe if there's no wind and the current lets them sneak up at night they could get lucky? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes in theory, but a lot of luck required. I can't find an instance where this actually happened. Alansplodge (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation - "And broad-based under all is planted England's oaken-hearted mood, as rich in fortitude as e'er went worldward from the island wall"

At Bristol Basin in New York City is a plaque erected by the English Speaking Union of the United States commemorating the use of rubble from the Bristol Blitz in building the area. The plaque includes what looks like a quotation "And broad-based under all is planted England's oaken-hearted mood, as rich in fortitude as e'er went worldward from the island wall." I wuld be interested to know the source, thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the comment after this blog post the poet was Stephen Vincent Benét. Fascinating story. Thincat (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but that particular segment was lifted from an interminably lengthy poem called National Ode by Bayard Taylor, the nation in question being the United States;

"She takes, but to give again, / As the sea returns the rivers in rain; / And gathers the chosen of her seed / From the hunted of every crown and creed. / Her Germany dwells by a gentler Rhine; / Her Ireland sees the old sunburst shine; / Her France pursues some dream divine; / Her Norway keeps his mountain pine; / Her Italy waits by the western brine; / And, broad-based under all, / Is planted England's oaken-hearted mood, / As rich in fortitude / As e'er went worldward from the island-wall! / Fused in her candid light, / To one strong race all races here unite..." (and so on and on and on).

It was recited by the poet at the Centennial International Exhibition of 1876, where it was allegedly "listened to with close attention". [1] See also Heart of Oak. Alansplodge (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Thincat: and @Alansplodge:. I think Benet must have written the "it was not their wall but their valour" bit before the text I quoted. DuncanHill (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I now think Alan's is the correct answer. When I saw him quoting "close attention" I thought I detected a note of scepticism. However, it looks as if a vast crowd really were overcome by the magnificence of the occasion as Taylor orated his ode.[2] Thincat (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that link Thincat; I'm afraid I was being over censorious, perhaps the popular taste in poetry at that time differed more than I imagined. I had thought it rivalled the work of William McGonagall, but I'm not seeking employment as a literary critic. Alansplodge (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they'd had a rather good lunch. I find McGonagall easier to get through than Taylor. DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 23

Is there any particular reason that Kharkiv became much more populous than nearby cities such as Kursk, Oryol, and Bryansk?

Is there any particular reason that Kharkiv became much more populous than nearby cities such as Kursk, Oryol, and Bryansk? Did Kharkiv's early status as the capital of the Ukrainian SSR (later moved to Kiev) have something to do with this? Or was there some other reason for this--and, if so, what exactly? Futurist110 (talk) 02:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"As the capital of interwar Soviet Ukraine, Kharkiv was developed more intensively than most other Soviet cities. Its area grew substantially, from 141 sq km in 1924 to 272 sq km in 1939... The reconstruction of industries destroyed during the Revolution of 1917 and subsequent Ukrainian-Soviet War, 1917–21, was followed by accelerated industrialization. In 1931 the huge Kharkiv Tractor Plant went into production; in 1933, the Kharkiv Machine-Tool Plant; and in 1934, the Kharkiv Turbine Plant. The prerevolutionary electromechanical (est 1887), cable (1890), motor (1882), and transport-machine-building (1885) plants increased their output. In 1930 the Kharkiv Regional Electric Station began supplying the city with electricity. By 1937 the output of Kharkiv's industries was 35 times greater than in 1913". [3] Alansplodge (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. So, my hypothesis here might have been correct! Futurist110 (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, after the war-time destruction, also the law of the stimulative arrears in action. --Lambiam 11:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe because it was easier to pronounce. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Easier for whom? Russians? They would have said Харьков anyway. --Lambiam 11:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that it was chosen as state capital because of it's proximity to Russia rather than having a central position in Ukraine. It stands at the junction of 3 major rivers and has been a rail hub since the 1860s, so has everything going for it. Alansplodge (talk) 21:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So that it would be easier for Russia to dominate Ukraine? Futurist110 (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was just the first city that fell under Bolshevik control - but probably because it was closest to Russia.

Kharkiv#The Red October and the Soviet period says: "In December 1917 Kharkiv became the first city in Ukraine occupied by the Soviet troops of Vladimir Antonov-Ovseyenko... In February 1918 Kharkiv became the capital of the Donetsk-Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic; but this entity was disbanded six weeks later... Prior to the formation of the Soviet Union, Bolsheviks established Kharkiv as the capital of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (from 1919 to 1934) in opposition to the Ukrainian People's Republic with its capital of Kyiv". Alansplodge (talk) 15:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian mystics, hypnotists, ascetics portrayed in popular culture in 1940s, 50s

In the Tintin comics, Seven Crystal Balls there is a small plot about a Indian magician performing in Europe.

There was a very old Looney Tunes cartoon released in 1939 showing a Hindu mystic performing on stage in USA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=5201&v=s1LS0gTxepU&feature=youtu.be

1950s horror comics written in USA or UK, has one story about Hindu sadhu wearing coat pant with Indian turban married to a white woman who has supernatural powers. In this story they also perform on stage in some western country, not specified USA or UK.

https://www.amazon.in/Haunted-Horror-Banned-Chilling-Archives/dp/1613777884

Even though these are work of fiction, not real.

But there must be some in real life who inspired these comics and cartoons.

I want to know that, as compared to today the number of Indian Hindus were very less during 1930s, 1940s, 1950s in USA, and these holy godmen are unlikely to speak English, so how did they manage to reach USA and perform there 80 years ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:3A80:1133:12AC:54B1:2B11:9F5E:2974 (talk) 13:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Of Fakers and Fakirs: Faux Indian Mysticism in Professional Magic which says that many (if not all) Indian performers in the West were just blacked-up Europeans. One of them was a certain Harry Houdini according to this.

An actual Indian performer in the West was P. C. Sorcar, a student of Ganapati Chakraborty (who appears not to have got further abroad than Singapore). See also Indian magic.

On your linguistic point, note that India had been in British possession (or at least influence in the Princely States) since the 18th century, so the English language was not unknown there. See Indian English#History. Alansplodge (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Tintin stories were originally written in French by a Belgian living in Belgium. Some are set in Belgium but there are books set in various different countries. I don't know the story you mention but there is at least one each set in Germany, USSR and the Congo. As noted above English is spoken by many in India-Im not sure what percentage. There would be fewer Indians able to speak French. In English literature set in Britain, because of the Imperial connection, there are quite a number of Indians although there would not be many living in Britain until the 1960s. For instance see the Moonstone by Wilkie Collins, The Sign of Four by Conan Doyle (a Sherlock Holmes story).and in Frank Richards Greyfriars stories there is an Indian Prince; Hurree Jamset Ram Singh who by his name must be a Sikh. These stories were printed in a boys story paper (not a comic) called the Magnet which was published between 1908 and 1940. He was a pupil at the Greyfriars School along with the other characters including Harry Wharton and Billy Bunter. Greyfriars was a public boarding school in the English sense : private school in the US sense. I don't know if any Indian characters went to the USA in British stories but like everybody else they would have gone by sea, probably via England. In real life Indians went all over the British Empire to work e.g to Kenya,Uganda, South Africa and the Carribean and Pacific islands.Spinney Hill (talk) 15:37, 23 December 2020 (UTC). .[reply]

How effective would banned bullets be compared to ones that don't break the laws of war?

Like poisoned, expanding, exploding, uranium, self-sharpening uranium, fragmenting, solid copper or something strategically weakened to partly or fully split into several sharp pieces if it enters meat... Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:34, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "effective". These types of ammunition are banned because they are designed to cause grievous bodily injuries, making it more likely that any survivors will suffer lifelong debilitating ill-effects, when compared to regular bullets, making them unnecessarily cruel. I doubt they really increase the likelihood of actually winning a battle. Xuxl (talk) 18:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know they're cruel, I was wondering if they're ever not just sadistic but would also have some military benefit if one were willing to use them (which probably would just get you back to square one as it likely wouldn't be long before the other side gives up diplomacy and starts attacking you with cruel things they hadn't used yet (which is a good reason to not use first in the first place, or better yet sign a ban before tensions)) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some could be more effective at causing death rather than merely wounding, but the value of that is questionable. In fact, some forces like the IDF are thought to try to cripple people rather than kill them as a constant visible warning to others who might protest and to drive the people into poverty through having to take care of the wounded. 2600:1702:3C80:B60:C4C7:93E4:4DC5:C15E (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if that isn't propaganda (I've heard they make bomb cases that turn to tungsten dust to reduce injury range by air resistance with the unavoidable physics of untreatable and worse damage close in) the other side did the same thing first by filling their bus bombs with ball bearings and/or sharp metal things dipped in rat poison. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"...the goal of modem warfare is not necessarily to annihilate an adversary, but more directly to reduce an enemy’s capability for further resistance. Whether through intimidation or physical damage, the military usefulness of weapons must ultimately be judged in terms of their contribution to this objective. Indeed, the proportion of non-lethal injury may have an even greater impact on operational success than the absolute number of deaths among an opponent’s force...

"...by creating greater numbers of casualties among opposing forces, many with multiple wounds, the enemy force will not only be weakened, but the logistic needs of their medical services will be increased. This may often evolve at the expense of the combat arms, since more enemy logistical resources and personnel will need to be withdrawn from offensive operations to care for the injured and facilitate their evacuation." Understanding weapons effects: A fundamental precept in the professional preparation of military physicians1 Alansplodge (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article: Dum-dum. 95.149.135.151 (talk) 11:10, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 24

How did Germany feel about Ukraine and Ukrainians in the Imperial and Weimar German eras?

How did Germany feel about Ukraine and Ukrainians in the Imperial and Weimar German eras? Seems like a relevant question considering that Germany occupied Ukraine during World War I, again during World War II, and is currently expanding its sphere of influence (specifically the European Union) into Ukraine yet a third time within a century! So, Yeah, I was wondering how exactly the typical Germans felt about Ukraine and Ukrainians under Bismarck, under Kaiser Wilhelm II, under the various Weimar German governments, and even in the early years of Nazi rule in Germany.

Thoughts? Futurist110 (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many Germans might not have been clearly aware of a separate Ukrainian identity until various tumultuous events near the end of WW1, since Ukrainians had been commonly refered to as "Little Russians", inhabitants of "Little Russia" (Kleinrussland). AnonMoos (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial German plans for Central Asia during World War I?

Did Imperial Germany ever make any plans for Central Asia during World War I? If so, what were these plans (as in, what exactly did these plans consist of) and when were these plans made? Futurist110 (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Central Asia is an awful long way away from the Russian imperial capital of St. Petersburg. I doubt that Germany ever had any plans to go that far and what purpose it could possibly have served. Xuxl (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose (well, one theoretical purpose) of this would have been to secure a German pivot point to China. Futurist110 (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans already had holdings in China (Qingdao), so why would they need to go the long, long, long way through central Asia? On the other hand, they were silly enough to concoct Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United States. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more to promote economic development in that part of the world. Futurist110 (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Germany only entered the First World War because it had agreed to defend the Austrians against the Russians, who were themselves acting in defence of Serbia. As far as I can tell, there was no plan for world domination analogous to the fantasies of the Nazis. Alansplodge (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not world domination, just a continuous German sphere of influence extending from the German border all of the way up to the Chinese border. Futurist110 (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen anything that might support that theory. Alansplodge (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason as to why these things are called alternate history. :) Futurist110 (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is that like an alternative fact? ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Paul Rohrbach had some ideas. Also Central Asia played an important role in WWI Ottoman plans and propaganda. You can find some information in this downloadable file (for example at page 20 or searching "Turkestan" in the text): https://www.mediafire.com/file/skr85v0qh19m2v0/WWI.doc/file --79.31.10.126 (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Will check out! Futurist110 (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of David Allison McKinley

Trying to find a photograph of David Allison McKinley, brother of William McKinley. I am only aware of the sketch from his obituary. KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google Image "David Allison McKinley" and a couple of photos turn up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No nothing shows up. Just images of William McKinley, their father and mother and other family members. I wouldn't ask a question I could google. KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right. The image labeled "David Allison McKinley" is actually William Sr. I went to Ancestry.com (pay site) and the only thing anyone seems to have is that same profile sketch. If he appears in family photos, it's possible none were ever scanned for public consumption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One obvious place to look is in printed biographies of William McKinley. Of course, to browse them you'd have to have access to a library that was open. No such thing around here just now. I poked around in Google Books but didn't find anything relevant. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity--when and where was his obituary published? Futurist110 (talk) 08:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In The San Francisco Chronicle of September 19, 1892, page 10.^[4] Both a news item and an obituary. --Lambiam 11:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several biographies of William McKinley at archive.org but although there are lots of pictures of his parents, there don't seem to be any of his brother. Alansplodge (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Ancient Chinese courtesy names

I'm working on Cai Lun's article and his courtesy name is Jingzhong. I'm wondering if in the Han Dynasty there was a specific time in someone's life when courtesy names would be given, or if it was completely circumstantial. The issue is that I'd like to include this info in the body of the article (to get the citation out of the lead!), but I'm not sure where to put it since it isn't known when Cai received his courtesy name. Best - Aza24 (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article on courtesy names says men received them at adulthood, or age 20, citing the Book of Rites. I can't say for sure whether that practice continued into the Han, or whether it necessarily applied in the same way to eunuchs like Cai Lun. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was Tynemouth in Northumberland in 1957?

Was Tynemouth in Northumberland in 1957? “Asking for a friend.”

I do mean administratively as well as historically. The article talks of changes in 1974 but …

Thank you!

Ceremonially, yes. Administratively, no. It had its own county borough which was independent of Northumberland county council and included North Shields. Valenciano (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Valenciano and Alansplodge, both of you, very much. The Craster (1907) work is lovely but doesn't tell me what was going on 50 years later in 1957; and Valenciano can you please tell me if you are saying definitely that the County Borough of Tynemouth was still in existence in 1957, and do you have a ref for that, please? I would really like to read up on this and get it straight in my own head. Er I mean of course the "friend's" head ... on whose behalf I am asking ... ahem. Thanks! DBaK (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'll see all of them as they existed at 1970 at this link. Valenciano (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And to back that up in text; "Finally, on 1 April 1974, under the 1972 Local Government Act, Tynemouth C.B. was abolished and became part of the newly-created Metropolitan District of North Tyneside" The National Archives - Tynemouth County Borough. Alansplodge (talk) 10:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, on 24 March 1974, the “County Borough of Tynemouth Terminal Celebrations” took place, in which the Tynemouth Scouts took part in a March-Past at the Town Hall (they certainly knew how to throw a party). Alansplodge (talk) 10:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both – absolutely nailed it. My friend will be most appreciative and interested! Cheers DBaK (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"You can't board our drug-trafficking boat! We are flagged Panama!"

How do flags of convenience rules work in practice, when the boat or ship in question is on the "high seas" (i.e. international waters), and a Navy ship suspects them of being drug runners?

I'm imagining something like this story. How would the Navy ship crew be allowed to board the ship when faced with a boat/ship armed with... a Panamanian flag?! Assuming the Panama registration is genuine, of course?

If it were that simple, surely drug-runners would have zealously exploited flags of convenience? What gives? Do the major "flag of convenience" states regularly give warrants for operations such as the one described in the article I linked to? OR, is there some "loophole" which allows this sort of military operation?

I know pirates and slave traders are deemed "hostis humani generis", and thus may be apprehended by any nation, even one that has not been attacked... is some similar rule or law of the sea at play here with drug-runners? Or something else?

(Note, my question is limited to operations in full-fledged "international waters". I'm well aware that in a country's territorial waters, or even its exclusive economic zone, it would likely have authority to carry out or authorize such operations). Eliyohub (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a US Coast Guard Auxiliarist; my understanding from the Active Duty folk is that drug smuggling is illegal under international law, so it doesn't matter what flag they're flying. This document seems to support that: https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/organized_crime/CNA%20Directory/English_ebook.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisa Koala (talk • contribs) 17:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can the Coast Guard Seize a Vessel in International Waters? [Slate; 2001-05-15]:

"When a suspicious vessel is identified at sea, the Coast Guard notifies the State Department, which then gets permission from the vessel’s flag nation for the Coast Guard to board. (In the rare instances when permission is denied, the Coast Guard will generally monitor the vessel as it approaches U.S. territory.)"

Hmm. "An Act implemented and routinely used by the United States Coast Guard allowing them to board foreign ships on the high seas under allegations of drug trafficking." from the infobox sounds more like a description than a "long title". Is that the proper use of that field?

Long titles can look like that, but I'm pretty sure that's not the right one. Also the "public law" citation in the infobox is wrong. As may be the year of passage. There were only 664 public laws passed by the 99th Congress, and none have a title of "Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act" or anything resembling the supposed long title. Wow that's a bad article. It primarily relies on a student note in Fordham Law Review (there are 11 footnotes pointing to it).

I am almost certain it's Title II, Subtitle C of Pub. L. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207. Formerly codified at 46 U.S.C. §§ 1902 et seq. The actual short name of the law is "Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Prosecution Improvements Act of 1986", it does not appear to have a long name of its own, and it was part of the "Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986". 69.174.144.79 (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do the treaties that banned cocaine, marijuana etc say anything about checking ships for them on high seas? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article 17 of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 covers this [5]. The relevant paragraph reads: "A Party which has reasonable grounds to suspect that a vessel exercising freedom of navigation in accordance with international law, and flying the flag or displaying marks of registry of another Party is engaged in illicit traffic may so notify the flag State, request confirmation of registry and, if confirmed, request authorization from the flag State to take appropriate measures in regard to that vessel." You can read the rest of the article to see how boarding proceeds. Xuxl (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drug trafficking is not a violation of any jus cogens norm of which I'm aware, such that traffickers could be considered the kin of pirates and slavers. Hell, even whalers aren't considered that. I recommend reading about the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is a multilateral treaty that might discuss rights to arrest and search ships on the high seas, if there is any such right. But, it's important to note that in the international arena, the laws are more for the protection of the nation state than the individuals. If the U.S. Coast Guard arrested and boarded a drug trafficking ship on the high seas (i.e., outside any EEZ/territorial claims) the ship owners and seamen would have no recourse in the courts to claim that the seizure was an internationally wrongful act. The flag nation could complain to the U.N., and if it seriously cared (as it might if this were a common issue or involved conduct like the harassment of fishing vessels or passenger liners) the flag nation might bring an action before the International Court of Justice (or, if it were almost any nation but the United States, before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea). 69.174.144.79 (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Side comment: this thread reminds me of a moment in the movie Lord of War where a gun-running ship is approached by authorities and changes things to disguise its identity. One of the things that's changed is what flag they're flying: as I recall, not so that they would be immune from being stopped, but just to look like a different ship than the one that authorities were seeking. Anyway, it turns out that their box of flags doesn't include the one they want... so they fake it by flying another country's flag turned sideways. I haven't seen the movie since it was in first-run, but I think the two countries were probably France and the Netherlands. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would need some very swift knife and needlework to convert a flag that way. Maybe you could make a small French flag from a big Netherlands one, but it just wouldn't work the other way around. Alansplodge (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they just hung it sideways and hoped that this wouldn't be noticed. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 25

Norwood

From April 25, 1866 to August 11, 1866, a ship named Norwood sailed from London to Auckland. Any source on this ship and where it stopped over along this journey? This ship would have taken William Hoapili Kaʻauwai and Kiliwehi from Europe to New Zealand. KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

THE SMART SHIP NORWOOD says: "The Norwood's third trip, still in command of Captain Bristow, was made in 1866. She left Gravesend on April 28, and reached Auckland on August 11. She brought out cargo and 65 passengers. In the Southern Ocean she struck a hurricane, which carried away the quarter galley and top-gallant bulwark besides doing other damage".

Also the passenger list which doesn't seem to include your Hawaiians (unless they were working their passage as part of the crew).

For the route taken, see clipper route (presumably it was non-stop). Alansplodge (talk) 10:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No they are there as Mr. and Mrs. Hospili [sic] as Saloon Passengers. Where would ships during this period stop off between destinations? Presumably South Africa and Australia (maybe also India)? I can't imagine they would be on the open ocean for 3.5 months KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind saw your second comment. KAVEBEAR (talk) 10:53, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The sailing ships had also refined the skill of sailing non-stop between England and New Zealand or Australia by taking a course that made use of prevailing winds and followed an approximation of the shortest 'Great Circle' route". [6] Alansplodge (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

interesting that he was an aide to King Kamehameha IV, who declared Christmas an official holiday in Hawaii, in 1862. Gfigs (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

what makes a city monumental

Whenever I visit a monumental city, meaning that is a tourist attraction and has a beauty, I always ask my self what makes city monumental.
Usually old but planned city gets a lot of attraction. So what makes city look good, and what makes city look bad?
--Exx8 (talk) 12:14, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Define "good" and "bad". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Exx8 and Baseball Bugs, here is one source that came up with criteria and made a list: World's Most Beautiful Cities. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that "monumental city" is a widely used term (according to this, Baltimore is known as "The Monumental City", or at least it was in 1850). I don't know if London would fit into your definition; it certainly has more monuments than you could shake a stick at, but is also free from the slightest trace of planning, with the possible exception of Regent Street and the London squares. It just grow'd like Topsy. Alansplodge (talk) 14:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's still in use, and here's where it came from.[7] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries". What's the gist? Alansplodge (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was first used in a DC newspaper in 1823, in reference to the city's under-construction George Washington monument, and was later repeated by President John Q. Adams, to whom it is sometimes erroneously attributed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what does it mean now? Outside of Baltimore that is. Alansplodge (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to wait for the OP to come back and answer that. He only edits sporadically. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could reread the question, where the phrase was explained: "a monumental city, meaning that is a tourist attraction and has a beauty". --174.95.161.129 (talk) 07:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prosecuting nazis

I watched a doc, The Devil Next Door, about one John Demjaniuk who was supposedly a Nazi war criminal called Ivan the Terrible. The USA claimed they didn't have jurisdiction over crimes in Ukraine, so they just sent him to Israel to be tried there. Then later he was tried in Germany. I have a feeling that the US could have tried him if they really wanted to. How is jurisdiction decided in cases like this? Crimes that happened elsewhere, long ago? Some crimes were committed in countries that don't even exist any more. Temerarius (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In recent years there's an International Criminal Court which is supposed to try high-level genociders. And special UN things for specific geographic areas have tried genociders. If a major Nazi showed up hopefully they would do a better job trying than they do with stopping African wars and stuff. Edit: However neither the US nor Ukraine has ratified.

Technically most United States laws do not have jurisdiction on non-Americans in other countries (besides embassies maybe) so who knows what's the best justification for trying him they could've come up with if they wanted the trial harder, I am not a lawyer. Maybe something similar to the any country can try pirates thing? In the biggest case of this type (at least after Nuremberg)Adolf Eichmann ended up being tried by Israel cause they were the first unsympathizing* country to know where he was and were worried the country he hid in might neither extradite him nor punish him sufficiently if they told them they knew. And there's no more powerful Jewish-majority country to send him to like how a British court is the top court of some independent Commonwealth countries. So for such a big fish they snuck him out of the country to Israel, changed the law to allow non-Israelis to defend people charged with capital crimes and tried him on 15 charges including crimes against humanity, war crimes, crimes against the Jewish people and membership in a criminal organisation. German defense lawyers and "I was just following orders" didn't beat the evidence and after appealing to the top he was hung. *technically true whether his hosts had no idea or not. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)This is a beautifully complex issue, to which one could dedicate many books. But as a preliminary matter, I suggest reading about extraterritorial jurisdiction and universal jurisdiction. The specific fact pattern you articulate: A person in the United States accused of being a Nazi war criminal would not likely be subject to the criminal law jurisdiction of the United States. Universal jurisdiction is not well accepted in the United States. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 01:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As our article on John Demjanjuk explains, Demjanjuk was almost definitely not Ivan the Terrible. He was innocent of that. He went home to the US, then later was accused of being a different guard at a different camp, and on the basis of that was denaturalized and deported to Germany, where he was convicted, but died before his appeal could be finalized, which according to German law makes him technically innocent.

I am not familiar with the details of the evidence on the second charge. But I do tend to find myself a bit more skeptical than I might have been if he hadn't been first prosecuted for being an entirely different guard. --Trovatore (talk) 01:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note, though, that the allegation of Demjanjuk having been a guard at the Sobibor camp was first made in the US in 1975 and predated the 1976 identification by Treblinka survivors as Ivan the Terrible. Details are presented in the book The Right Wrong Man: John Demjanjuk and the Last Great Nazi War Crimes Trial. --Lambiam 14:17, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was not Ivan, a witness at the Israel trial said he was and they declined to prosecute for being a different camp's guard when the Ivanness was sorted out. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He was a terrible Ivan, only not the Terrible Ivan. --Lambiam 14:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 26

Ho ho ho

Santa Claus in America is always laughing sounding "Ho ho ho". How did this start? From a movie or a book? Thank you. Hevesli (talk) 01:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because that's what people in the 19th century thought that a jolly person would say. Not as close to laughing as "ha ha ha" or "heh heh heh", but sort of in the same ballpark. AnonMoos (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing specific yet, but A History of Engliah Dramatic Literature, London 1875 (p. 53) says in a footnote: "'Ho ho ho' and 'Oute Haro out out' are the exclamations by which the Devil is wont to announce himself in the miracles. In Jonson's The Devil Is an Ass Satan enters with the usual 'Hoh, hoh, hoh,' an evident reminiscence from the old mysteries and moralities". Alansplodge (talk) 12:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Welvome Guest: A Magazine of Recreative Reading for All, London 1861 (pp. 571-572) quotes a poem attributed to Ben Jonson about Robin Goodfellow (a mischievous spirit or fairy, also known as Puck): "More swift than winde away I go / O'er hedge and lands / Through pools and ponds / I whirry laughing Ho! Ho! Ho!".

Also Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream has Puck saying "Ho, ho, ho! Coward, why comest thou not?" (Act III, Scene II).

How Father Christmas followed on from Satan and Puck is the missing link at the moment. Alansplodge (talk) 12:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to EO, "ho-ho-ho" representing laughter has been around for about 800 years.[8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, perhaps I was over-thinking it... Alansplodge (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest reference I can find directly connecting Father Christmas / Santa Claus with the phrase is a song by William Batchelder Bradbury called The Christmas Tree, or Kris Kringle, which appears in his Fresh Laurels for the Sabbath School New York 1867 (No. 148):

"O, this is Santa Claus's man, Kris Kringle with his Christmas tree. Oh ho, Oh ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho, ho..."

Interestingly, here Kris Kringle is portrayed as a separate character to Santa Claus; Wikipedia suggests a connection with the German Christkind, although that doesn't really seem to fit with Bradbury's lyrics. Alansplodge (talk) 14:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary gives German Christkindl as the etymon of Kris Kringle. In the American tradition two end-of-the-year gift-bringers became conflated. --Lambiam 14:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for answering, but the wide spread of the phenomenon still puzzles me. If the American child hears "ho ho ho" she knows that Santa Claus is around the corner. Jolly people don't laugh all the time, but Santa Claus does. He could only laugh "ho ho" or make a change "ha ha ha" but it is always "ho ho ho". How to explain this is become so completely fixed is what I don't understand. Hevesli (talk) 14:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As another data point, The Life and Adventures of Santa Claus from 1902 has him living for a while in the Laughing Valley of Hohaho, suggesting both that the hos were entrenched but not yet quite in their current formulation. The Puck quote is an interesting one; he seems to be using it the way many people do now - not quite an earnest laugh, but a show of haughtiness or sarcasm. Matt Deres (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because he has three gardens. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or, keeps company with three prostitutes? 2603:6081:1C00:1187:3126:540A:D85A:8430 (talk) 19:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Santa wants a hoe, hoe, hoe. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC) [reply]

just a sad Christmas "song".. Gfigs (talk) 07:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Clio (1858)

Trying to find the port of calls and dates for HMS Clio (1858) in 1865. It landed in Honolulu from Valparaíso on April 9, 1865 and left on May 6. Presumably touched based in Mexico and Panama in June. When did it leave Valparaíso? Some sources mentioned that it was going around the world so where did it come from before Valparaíso and did it make a circumnavigation that year after leaving Panama? KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sailed to Valparaiso from the Juan Fernández Islands, arriving on 22 February 1865. Later that year, in December, it was in Fort Rupert, shelling a First Nations village. --Antiquary (talk) 19:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It served on the British Columbia coast from 1864 to 1868. On its way out to Valparaiso in late 1864 it touched at Madeira, Ascension and the Falklands. If its return voyage in 1868 was via the Pacific and Indian Oceans then that might explain any talk about a circumnavigation. --Antiquary (talk) 20:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orkhan

I'd like know to know the original source/age of this leadimage, preferably with something to cite in the article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Kapıdağlı and John Young. The series was published in 1815 as "Portraits of the Emperors of Turkey from the Foundation of the Monarchy to the year 1808". KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most excellent. Thanks! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 27

Anti-neutron bomb parody ad

Was there ever a full-page ad taken out in The Washington Post (or some other prominent US paper) sometime in the 1970s by an anti-nuclear organization (perhaps Greenpeace) promoting a parody of the idea of a neutron bomb -- that is, a device which would somehow destroy military infrastructure and weapons but not harm people? (The question is based on the recollection of a friend that we've not been able to verify.) -- ToE 03:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The neutron bomb is supposed to kill people and leave the infrastructure relatively intact[9] AboutFace 22 (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question reads like he knew that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:23, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The neutron bomb was the center of protests and political uproar in "1977-78 and again in 1981".[10] The ad my friend recalls was from this period and advocated, in a tongue-in-cheek manner, for a device which worked oppositely. (Though our article doesn't mention it, I assume The Nude Bomb AKA The Return of Maxwell Smart, released in May 1980, similarly parodied the neutron bomb.) -- ToE 14:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional cases of demographic reversals?

Which cases have there been where a country's or territory's demographics significantly changed only to eventually return to what they previously were?

Off the top of my head, I can think of:

German settlement in Eastern Europe during the Middle Ages (Ostsiedlung) and beyond, only to see this reversed in the 20th century as a result of mass expulsions of Germans from Eastern Europe in the aftermath of World War II and also mass emigration of Germans from Romania and the former Soviet Union back to Germany after the end of the Cold War.
Polish settlement in the Kresy (the eastern territories of Poland before 1939). A lot of Poles settled in the Kresy in the second millennium only to have this trend be reversed in the 20th century as a result of Stalin's deportation of Poles from the Kresy back to Poland.
The exodus of the Jews from Palestine in Roman times and their subsequent return to Palestine through mass aliyah by the millions in the 20th and 21st centuries.
Russian settlement in the "Near Abroad" during Tsarist and Soviet times, which was in large part (though certainly not completely) reversed after the collapse of the Soviet Union--when many of these Russians moved back to Russia.
The settlement of large numbers of Europeans (pieds-noirs) in Algeria in the 19th and early 20th centuries only to see these Europeans be expelled from Algeria in 1962 (which is when Algeria gained its independence from France). A similar trend might have also occurred on a smaller scale in various other African and Third World countries.
The settlement of large numbers of Non-Hispanic White people in the Southwestern U.S. in the 19th and 20th centuries, followed by a massive increase in the Hispanic percentage of the total population in the Southwestern U.S. in the late 20th and 21st centuries as a result of large-scale Hispanic immigration. The Southwestern U.S. had a huge Hispanic percentage before it was conquered by the U.S. in 1848 and its demographics are gradually reverting to what they were before the U.S. conquest of these territories.
The Greco-Turkish population exchange in the early 1920s eliminating the millennia-long Greek presence in Anatolia.
The Reconquista of Spain by Christian Europeans between 1000 and 1492, which ultimately culminated in the expulsion of Arabs, Muslims, Moors, and Moriscos from Spain in spite of them having a centuries-long presence in Spain up to that point, ever since the Umayyad conquest of Spain back in 711. What applies to Spain is, of course, also true for Portugal, which was also liberated from Muslim rule in the early second millennium.
The flight of the Muhacirs (some of whom were Turks and the rest of whom were other Muslims) from places such as the Balkans back to the Ottoman Empire/Turkey over the last couple of centuries as the centuries-long Ottoman presence in the Balkans disappeared and ended. There were no (or few) Turks and Muslims in the Balkans in 1200, a lot more Turks and Muslims in the Balkans in 1700 at the heyday and peak of Ottoman rule there, and again few Turks and Muslims in most of the Balkans right now, in the 21st century.

Anyway, which examples of demographic reversals am I missing/forgetting to list here? Futurist110 (talk) 07:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "millennium-long Greek presence in Anatolia" lasted closer to two-and-a-half millennia. --Lambiam 09:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I meant to write "millennia" but accidentally wrote "millennium" instead. I have now corrected this typo. Futurist110 (talk) 18:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was large-scale emigration of Indians to Burma in the late 19th century and early 20th century, resulting in the population of Burma being 16% ethnically Indian by 1939. The Second World War and then Ne Win's expulsions drove most back to India, so that the figure is less than 2% today. Likewise the Rohingya conflict has driven many of the Rohingya, reckoned to be of Bengali descent, back to Bangladesh. --Antiquary (talk) 11:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent examples! Futurist110 (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Panama Canal Zone used to have a large expatriate American community with all the amenities you'd expect; they all left after the Panama Canal Treaty. I think I have also mentioned at some point the large Indian communities in East Africa that were largely "invited" to leave in the 1960s after Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania achieved independence. That said, more common than leaving is some of these populations being so assimilated into the mainstream that only vestigial traces of their foreign origin remain after a few generations. Xuxl (talk) 14:18, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a lot of intermarriage between African Indians and Sub-Saharan Africans? Futurist110 (talk) 18:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian diaspora in Southeast Africa doesn't answer the question directly, but may contain links and references worth investigating. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.56.237 (talk) 19:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Futurist110 (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 28

Princess Diana's interest in clairvoyance

The British Royal Family has always had a close relationship with the Church of England and Church of Scotland. The Queen, and her children were married in churches. have attended church services, and been supportive also of other religions.

Princess Diana shared these sentiments. although, she did also have an interest in clairvoyance. and often visited psychics, such as Rita Rodgers, Sally Morgan and Simone Simmons.

how did this interest in clairvoyance develop ? and are there any indications that since the reign of Queen Elizabeth II, other members of the British Royal Family, have had an interest in psychic or paranormal phenomena ? Gfigs (talk) 10:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a story that Queen Victoria consulted a medium called Robert James Lees (1849-1931), although this is doubtful because at the date of his purported first séance, he would have only been 12 years-old. Lees was later involved in the hunt for Jack the Ripper. [11]

Another unconfirmed story has the whole Royal Family holding a séance with a dodgy medium called Lilian Bailey in 1953. [12]

Note that the monarch is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, which has traditionally taken a dim view of Spiritualism.

Alansplodge (talk) 12:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks..while ago, I seen a photo of mirror of John Dee, in a museum in UK..Prince Charles is a member of "The Magic Circle". although, that probably has more to do with illusion.. Gfigs (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Philip has, reportedly,^[13][14] a keen interest in flying saucers and extraterrestrials. --Lambiam 13:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

really..Freemasons such as Arthur Conan Doyle had an interest in spiritualism..there was a controversy over this..also thought about J.K.Rowling's and The Ghost Club Gfigs (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex reportedly consulted a clairvoyant in her pre-royal days [15]. --Antiquary (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ah ha..hope they can be happy, in the US..Gfigs (talk) 14:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this qualifies as "paranormal", but the Royal Family is known for their advocacy of homeopathy (e.g:[16]). 2603:6081:1C00:1187:DDE3:6CAA:B88F:3DD (talk) 18:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heatherden Hall and the Anglo-Irish Treaty

Until I removed it yesterday our article Heatherden Hall contained a claim that the Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed there. I have seen similar claims elsewhere on the net, perhaps the most specific is the claim here that "The fireplace in what was now the Cocktail Bar, showed the following inscription: ‘In this room, on November 3, 1921, the ratification of the Irish Free State Treaty was settled by the Earl of Birkenhead, Viscount Long, Viscount Younger of Leckie, Sir Malcolm Fraser, Bart., and Lieut.-Colonel W. Grant Morden, J.P., M.P.’" Now as the Treaty was not signed until the 6th December, and ratification was a matter for the parliaments, clearly whatever happened on the 3rd November at Heatherden wasn't ratification in any sense. Also, all those listed were British Unionist (Conservative) politicians - no Irish and no Liberals amongst them - so obviously wasn't the signing of the Treaty. So - what did happen at Heatherden Hall on the 3rd November 1921? It would be nice too to have a citable source for where the Treaty was signed - I assume 10 Downing St. The copy deposited at the League of Nations simply says "at London". Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grant-Morden held a shooting party at Heatherden Hall at the weekend 5/6 November but no mention I can find of anything to do with the treaty. The UK Prime Minister was still holding cabinet discussions in London the following weekend about the treaty. MilborneOne (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Something from The Lincolnshire Echo in 1933 - It says the plaque was to record that an agreement between Grant-Morden, Lord Birkenhead, Sir George Younger, Sir Malcom Fraser and Lord Long "came to an agreement that the Tory Party would support the Coalition Government's efforts to establish the Irish Free State Treaty". Not exactly the signing of the treaty then. MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Not sure if a master's thesis is a Reliable Source, but Lord Birkenhead and the Irish question has plenty of detail about the negotiations, which were finally signed "At 2:10 a.m., on December 6, 1921" at "the Prime Minister's residence", i.e. No 10 Downing Street (pp. 220-221 or 228-229/272 of the pdf file). There's no mention of Heatherden Hall, but in early November, the British side were mired in arguments about Ulster (some things never change). Alansplodge (talk) 18:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: thanks, that's an interesting read. Peter Rowland says the Treaty was signed in the Cabinet Room at No. 10 so I've used him to add that to the Treaty article. DuncanHill (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MilborneOne: Are you able to send me the Lincs Echo story, with the date and page number? That sounds like something that we could use in the Heatherden Hall article. DuncanHill (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 29

Alcoholic or drug addicted First Ladies

The article on Betty Ford states: "She also raised awareness of addiction when in the 1970s, she announced her long-running battle with alcoholism and substance abuse, being the first First Lady to do so."

Has there been a second First Lady, I assume of the United States, to admit the same? --†dismas†|^(talk) 02:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "first ladies who went to rehab", Betty Ford is the only name I'm seeing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 221: / Line 221: @@
 :::::::So what does it mean now? Outside of Baltimore that is. [[User:Alansplodge|Alansplodge]] ([[User talk:Alansplodge|talk]]) 12:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 ::::::::We'll have to wait for the OP to come back and answer that. He only edits sporadically. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 15:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
+:::::::::Or you could reread the question, where the phrase was explained: "a monumental city, meaning that is a tourist attraction and has a beauty". --[[Special:Contributions/174.95.161.129|174.95.161.129]] ([[User talk:174.95.161.129|talk]]) 07:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 == Prosecuting nazis ==