Humanities desk
< November 22	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 23[edit]

Is there any chance Trump could still win?[edit]

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[1] 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.^[2] 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;^[3] 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: [4] 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")[5] 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?[edit]

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?[edit]

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 [6]. 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 [7] 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 ([8]). 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?[edit]

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[edit]

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]