Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

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 29

Xiang Yu from Ming Dynasty

Who is the Ming Dynasty palace tutor Xiang Yu (not the hegemon king of Western Chu from the Chu-Han Contention) mentioned here as a tutor to the Ming crown prince Zhu Cilang? What would be the Chinese character for his name? KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

KAVEBEAR, this was zh:項煜. Folly Mox (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, that book you're previewing on gbooks is available through TWL under license by De Gruyter (not that the actual book contains Chinese characters, extremely unhelpfully, but still, FYI). Folly Mox (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also available through archive.org, where you can read the footnote (71 Wang Youdian, Shiwai, p. 507 (4:29a). Xiang Yu had been driven out of office during Wei Zhongxian's ascendancy because "he was partial to the purists (qingyi) from Jiangnan." Li, Sanyuan biji, fuzhong, 22a.). --Lambiam 13:37, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

14th Amendment

USA: What are the legal / practical consequences if a candidate for a public office is declared to be unfit, based on the 14th amendment? I deduct from the statement of the Californian official, Ms Sheenah Bellows, that there is no precedent.
I suspect that the case will be passed on to the SCOTUS which may / may not deem this decision to be valid. However, I have no idea if a presidential election is seen as a federal process or as a set of 50 individual sate-based processes where the Supreme Court may have no jurisdiction.
Thank you for any information!

Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 08:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM: Can you please provide context for your question, since tyou seem to have a specific case in mind? Regarding your second bullet: The Supreme Court has heard election cases before, such as Bush v. Gore RudolfRed (talk) 08:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the only reference to Shenna Bellows I have been able to find so far is the Secretary of State for Maine. Please clarify what you are asking about. RudolfRed (talk) 08:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM, please be aware that Shenna Bellows is the Secretary of State of Maine, and Maine is about 3,100 miles from California. You are correct that the current 14th Amendment challenges to Trump's 2024 candidacy are unprecedented and will likely be decided by the US Supreme Court, and that each state has its own election procedures. You are incorrect, though, in stating that the Supreme Court may lack jurisdiction. Several provisions of the US Constitution pertain to elections of federal officials, and states can "do their own thing" only to the extent that they do not violate that constitution. Cullen328 (talk) 08:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional information is available at 2024 presidential eligibility of Donald Trump. Cullen328 (talk) 09:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoon flag

Of what State is this flag from Tiger Mask II anime series? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.60.174.64 (talk) 13:42, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not recognize it as an existing flag. Flags with all-black backgrounds are extremely rare. Xuxl (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you refer to a State within the fictional story of the series, or to a real-world State? {The poster formerly knowna s 87.81.230.195} 90.205.111.170 (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A real-life State. 193.207.150.170 (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an exhaustive knowledge of Vexillology, although it's connected to Heraldry – a long-standing interest of mine – but I'm 99.9% sure that it can't be the flag of a real state.

For one thing, flags in the real world are intended to be identifiable from a distance, and here the white markings are so small that they would likely not be seen from any great distance, so the flag would appear plain black.

Secondly, a fictional work such as this series would be unlikely to use a real state's flag unless the state concerned was clearly identified in the story – otherwise the series might be subject to diplomatic protests or legal sanctions for defamation, etc.

Finally, I have never encountered real-world 'state' flags anything like this, except the variations of the Jihadist flag used by Islamic State and others. It is clearly not any of these, but might be intended to suggest a similar fictional terrorist or illegal organisation, which seems consistent with the rest of the picture. Black flags have also been used by some Anarchist groups, see Anarchist symbolism. You will know better than I whether any of this fits the content of the series. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.111.170 (talk) 07:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, closed. 95.244.136.182 (talk) 08:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not so fast! I should note that in the somewhat real (pro wrestling) world, black is the colour of Tiger Mask's nemesis, Black Tiger. If you want to get really real, Black Tiger II was played by a Texan and a Mexican. I'll bet that doesn't answer the question. But from Rollerball Rocco to Black Tiger VIII, they've always been a somewhat foreign menace to their Japanese counterparts. As a fan of non-anime animation, I've noticed that's often the way it goes; it's the shadiest of shades, chock full of unknown, usually flown and worn by strangers. once the protagonist and audience get to know them, they can turn out to be alright (though typically misunderstood). Same with this fine print (probably). Anyway, good luck to the OP and thank you to the former IP for letting me know "vexillology" is more than just an oddly-shaped word! InedibleHulk (talk) 01:29, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for the source of the following story (Venice, 18th century, Ottoman ambassador and Venitian noblemen)

Can you find the source of the following story that I've read somewhere that I'm going to tell you in my own words (this is not cut and pasted from the web): "The Ottoman ambassador to Venice and some Venitian noblemen were sitting around drinking wine. Muslims are not supposed to drink wine. One of the noblemen asked the ambassador: Why did your prophet forbid you the drinking of wine? The Turk answered: So that we may find it more pleasurable"? Thanks. Cheers. Note: I've asked bingchat and it couldn't find a source. 178.51.15.36 (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds familiar but I can't think where I've heard it. In some ways reminiscent of the Aga Khan's "I am so holy that when I drink wine, it turns to water". Was that Maugham? DuncanHill (talk) 22:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On this site the story (or a similar one) is related in connection with Lady Mary Wortley Montagu, so it may be found in her Turkish Embassy Letters. --Wrongfilter (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She says, Letter XXVII 1 April 1717, "Achmed Bey did not own to me that he was of this opinion [Deism] but made no scruple of deviating from some part of Mohammed’s law by drinking wine with the same freedom we did. When I asked him how he came to allow himself that liberty he made answer that all the creatures of God were good and designed for the use of man; however, that the prohibition of wine was a very wise maxim and meant for the common people, being the source of all disorders amongst them, but that the prophet never designed to confine those that knew how to use it with moderation. However, scandal ought to be avoided and that he never drank it in public. This is the general way of thinking amongst them, and very few forbear drinking wine that are able to afford it". and later in Letter XL, February 1718, "If I remember right I think I have told you in some former letter that at Belgrade we lodged with a great and rich effendi, a man of wit and learning, and of a very agreeable humour. We were in his house about a month and he did constantly eat with us, drinking wine without any scruple. As I rallied him a little on this subject he answered me, smiling, that all the creatures in the world were made for the pleasure of man and that God would not have let the vine grow were it a sin to taste of its juice. But that nevertheless the law, which forbids the use of it to the vulgar, was very wise because such sort of folks have not sense enough to take it with moderation". DuncanHill (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Modern paraphrase: "Rules are for the obeyance of fools, and the guidance of wise men", variously attributed to Harry Day or Douglas Bader. Alansplodge (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. I'll take a look at Lady Mary Wortley Montagu's work. Where did you find the text? The anecdotes mentioned seem all to make the point that the prohibition is wise because it is appropriate for the majority of people who are incapable of drinking in moderation, but is unnecessary for people who can moderate their drinking. But the anecdote I was asking about has a different, more humorous, slant: the Ambassador was implying that anything that is forbidden is more enjoyable and therefore that the Prophet was right to forbid wine as that makes it more enjoyable, as if that had been the Prophet's purpose all along. He was joking of course. 178.51.15.36 (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's not the same as what you are recalling, which is a form of "forbidden fruit is the sweetest". Lady Mary's The Turkish Embassy Letters are available to borrow on Archive.org (free registration required) at this link. DuncanHill (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little bit lonely, Just a little bit sad

What does the phrase "Soley Soley mean? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 23:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some searching around and haven't found a conclusive answer. There are three theories on various personal websites and social media posts: it's a nonsense phrase, like some of their other song titles; it's someone's surname; or it's a misspelling of "soleil, soleil". Warofdreams talk 00:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly there are a few versions of the song sung by others that have it as soleil soleil including a version by Nana Mouskouri https://secondhandsongs.com/performance/21769/all Nanonic (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 30

Colorado 2024 presidential primary/caucuses

2024 United States presidential election in Colorado says

The Colorado Republican caucuses are scheduled to be held on Super Tuesday, March 5, 2024.

The linked article about the caucuses though actually redirects to an article about a primary election.

As we know, the CO Supreme Court (held pending SCOTUS appeal) threw Trump off the primary ballot in that state. I heard some talk of the GOP converting the primary to caucuses in response, since caucuses strictly speaking don't have a ballot, I guess. Is that what happened here?

In Maine, [1] quotes the Maine secretary of state, "I am mindful that no secretary of state has ever deprived a presidential candidate of ballot access based on Section 3 of the 14th Amendment..." so my immediate thought was "what about Colorado?". It looks like CO's decision was made by a court rather than the Sec of State. Does that distinction really matter? The news articles and Wikipedia articles that I've looked at (not very thoroughly) don't say much about the history of either state's challenges. Particularly I wondered whether CO's SecState decided anything, or is just taking directions from the courts.

Disclosure: I'm viewing these proceedings with skepticism but also amusement. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:1927 (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maine is the only state that requires it to be done by the SOS instead of courts. — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 06:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

citation needed. --Lambiam 10:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[2]Maine is the second state to bar Trump from the ballot under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution — a decision the Trump campaign said it would appeal. It is the only state where a challenge to a candidate's qualification is initially the responsibility of the secretary of state rather than a court. — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 10:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI… Trump is apparently back on the Colorado ballot. Blueboar (talk) 13:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[3]. 2A00:23C7:9CD1:3901:814B:BC3C:8CC4:37EF (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that Trump is back on the Colorado ballot is a little bit misleading since the ballots have not yet been printed. What is true is that the ruling can be appealed to federal courts. If Trump appeals to the US Supreme Court as expected, and they rule in his favor, then he will be on the printed ballots. If Trump does not file a valid appeal, or if the US Supreme Court declines the case or rules against him, he will not be on the Colorado ballot. No prediction from me about which way it will go. Cullen328 (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

...has been appealed (by Colorado Republican Party).

5%: The Court denies certiorari or the case otherwise goes away before the Supreme Court decides it.
40%: The Court reverses the Colorado Supreme Court, holding that, as a matter of law, Trump isn’t disqualified under Section 3.
40%: The Court vacates the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision in a manner that leaves the door open to future Section 3 litigation.
15%: The Court affirms the Supreme Court of Colorado.

prediction from Adam Unikowsky. fiveby(zero) 04:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The American revolution in American schools

It may have changed since my time in school (but I doubt it), but why is what is taught in middle/high school classes about the American revolution so incomplete, one-sided or flat out incorrect? Or did any of you fellow Americans have a relatively complete education on it?

They would have you believe the colonists were overwhelmingly patriots and the loyalists were a small minority, that George III was an absolute monarch that could have anybody hanged for any reason, and that no peace efforts like the Carlisle Commission (or the Conciliation Plan), were made. The PM, Lord North is never mentioned, nor the fact the war was effectively ended by the no-confidence motion in him in parliament.

French assistance is often mentioned, but that of the Dutch (guess you can toss in Spain and the indian tribes too) never is. The Gaspee affair is unacknowledged. The unusual and precarious situation of the Vermont Republic is ignored. The founding fathers are portrayed as best of friends, however there was of course much tension in the triangle of Hamilton, Adams, and Jefferson.

I guess you could say it is because of time or curriculum constraints or the fact much of the above perhaps paints the patriots in a less-favorable light but these seem like quite glaring holes that I don't recall happening when being taught about later conflicts like the Civil War. — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 10:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should also mention the fact many think Maine was one of the 13 colonies (it was actually part of Massachusetts until 1820) — THORNFIELD HALL^(Talk) 10:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect that in most countries also today the school education in national history has a patriotic bend, portraying people considered founders of the nation as heroes and the nation's side in any wars as more just than the side of the enemy, glossing over the ugly parts. --Lambiam 14:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can remember, my high-school's treatment of the Revolutionary War didn't display any obvious biases, but it was rather dumbed down and we didn't have time to explore the details. The colonists of British North America weren't all that oppressed by the standards of the late 18th-century, but they wanted recognition of the fact that they had become established settled societies with significant populations who wanted to enjoy English liberties, not sparse settlements barely hanging on to the seacoasts, or tiny Caribbean islands. On the political level, they wanted either direct representation in the parliament of Great Britain and/or constitutionally-entrenched rights and protections which couldn't be overturned by a simple majority vote of a future parliament. Influential British politicians basically refused to even seriously consider making such changes... -- AnonMoos 21:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

"Dumbed down" fits, not just for history but for most any subject. It was in college that we began to learn more of the real truth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:10, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

including reading, riting & rithmetic, not to mention show and tell?!?! ---Sluzzelin talk 01:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thornfield Hall, judging by userboxen on your userpage, your generation may have experienced the worst period of American primary education in recent history. I recall a number of colleagues who had quit teaching in the US public school system during the mid-2000s, after the passage of the No Child Left Behind act.

They uniformly complained how that law had wrecked their ability to teach the curriculum they thought was appropriate, forcing them instead to teach a much narrower curriculum designed to allow their district's pupils to achieve adequate scores on their state's standardised tests, so that their school's funding would not decrease. If I recall correctly this was paired simultaneously with forced integration of students of all skill levels, including children who properly should have been in assisted living facilities rather than the public school system, and the test scores of those students were assessed without accounting for their disabilities.

Having said that, these former colleagues had all come from STEM fields, and it's possible the humanities were not hit as badly, and I'm sure my anecdotal memory suffers from sampling bias, since again these were all people who had made a career change to leave the US public school system due to some silly law. It's easy to extrapolate that probably the "Revolutionary War" curriculum was pegged to some state educational board's determination of which set of multiple choice compliant facts would contribute to allocation of funding to different districts in their state, and that the situation may have improved some since the problematic law was superseded by a thing I just learned of called the Every Student Succeeds Act, which gave more control back to the states over the interface between standardised test scores and funding apportionment.

As a further bit of anecdote, an American friend of mine recently (c. 2020) told me that his daughter, then thirteen, had learned more early US history from Hamilton (musical) than from school (and that family had always specifically selected addresses within the "good" school districts in their city). Folly Mox (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What the OP wrote is typically taught at the university level, which suggests that OP's complaint is that younger students are not taught subjects at the same level of sophistication as older students. Perhaps OP might ponder why that might be. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 21:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Responding to original poster.) I don't actually know very much about North. Looking him up quickly in Wikipedia and following links, though, it appears that the war was effectively ended by the Patriot victory at Yorktown, which in turn forced North out of office when he was unable to come to terms that would keep the Colonies under British rule (though naval engagements continued for some time). --Trovatore (talk) 21:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's clear that you need to simplify what you teach in school - but simplification should not result in either falsification or white-washing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment of slaves in the Islamic Middle Ages

Is it true that slave owners in the Islamic Orient castrated their slaves in the Middle Ages? 2A02:8071:60A0:92E0:39E3:6BAD:12E7:23BB (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eunuch#Middle_East would be the or one article to read. However, it doesn't seem to go into detail on how these slaves (certainly not all slaves) came to be eunuchs in the first place. --Wrongfilter (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Kizlar agha... AnonMoos (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Castration#Islam is pretty clear about it. You buy them already cut. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, eunuch slaves were bought pre-cut, not all male slaves. Grand Vizier Ibrahim Edhem Pasha, who was brought as a slave to Constantinople while still a very young boy, fathered painter, archaeologist, museum curator and Kadıköy mayor Osman Hamdi Bey. --Lambiam 12:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are some sources at Slavery in the Ottoman Empire. 2A00:23D0:C82:9A01:844E:39:F208:D382 (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Hideous Trade. Economic Aspects of the 'Manufacture' and Sale of Eunuchs (you can access JSTOR articles by opening a free account or via the Wikipedia Library). The upshot is that mutilating slaves was prohibited by Islamic law, the penalty being a similar mutilation on the perpetrator, but it was considered acceptable to acquire slaves mutilated by somebody else. There were also some unpleasant economic considerations for performing the operation before transporting the boy slaves to market. Alansplodge (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chigi Zondadari vs Zondadari

What do you know about the Zondadari and the Chigi Zondadari? Are they the same family? In other words are all Zondadari a branch of the Chigi family? Or are the Zondadari and the Chigi Zondadari two different families? There are two Zondadari with their own articles on WP. One does have an alternate family name "Chigi Zondadari" according to the article, and the other does not seem to, or at least the article does not mention it. On the other hand that other guy's mother was a Chigi. Confusing. I've also checked the Italian WP and there's nothing more there. Is anyone able to find anything more? Thanks. 178.51.15.36 (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were two noble families, Chigi and Zondadari. The Chigi Zondadari branch of the Zondadari family arose when Agnese Chigi, a niece of Pope Alexander VII, married Ansano Zondadari.^[4] Their offspring advertized their dual noble descent by using the double-barreled family name "Chigi Zondadari", although some just used, or were known by, the family name "Zondadari". Marc'Antonio Zondadari was a son of Agnese and Ansano, as was de:Alessandro Zondadari, while Antonio Felice Zondadari was the son of another brother of Marc'Antonio and Alessandro, it:Antonio Felice Zondadari senior. --Lambiam 11:21, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 31

Monarch vs Regent

[5] This article in a couple of places refers to Danish Queen Margrethe as a "regent" rather than as a monarch. Is that intentional? What is the significance? Thanks. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:1927 (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to our sister project Wiktionary, regent is the Danish word for "monarch", but can also mean "regent". It appears likely that somebody at the BBC assumed that the meaning was the same as the English word, but in this context it is extremely likely that monarch is the correct translation.

Matt's talk 20:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ... the problems of similarity in language. Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The highly-technical linguistic term for this is "False friend"...

-- AnonMoos (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, thanks. I'd have expected the BBC to know better. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:1927 (talk) 22:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But there are worse horses than BBC. One of the readers they expected by chance would have been a Euro English reading Danish Prime Minister; maybe even others, her staff.. --Askedonty (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, regent just meant "ruler", and not specifically "actual ruler in place of the nominal monarch". While it is now unusual (and potentially confusing) to use the term for a ruling monarch, it is not wrong. --Lambiam 11:36, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 1

Dates of readings by Edgar Cayce

I'm hoping to get Hall of Records to GA status. It's about a pseudoarchaeological concept that originated in the 1930s, in psychic "readings" by Edgar Cayce. I want to know the dates of the key pronouncements about the Hall of Records. Some of the secondary sources that I used in the article give dates for the earliest appearance of a particular idea in Cayce's readings, but I'm not sure they actually represent the earliest occurrences of those ideas.

There are compilations of Cayce's claims about the Hall of Records (including one I have on hand, written by Mark Lehner before he became a mainstream archaeologist), but the maddening thing is that they all refer to specific readings without any dates. They use reference numbers from some kind of indexing system devised by Cayce's organization, the ARE. I've been looking for a source to correlate these index numbers with the dates of the readings in question, but so far I've had no luck. Does anyone have suggestions? A. Parrot (talk) 04:28, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried contacting the ARE via their website? I am sure they would be keen to help. Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not eager to do it, given that I'm effectively out to debunk them (though of course I wouldn't have to tell them that). I suppose I may have to. A. Parrot (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How was the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet selected?

The Presidium of the Supreme Soviet was the collective head of state of the USSR, according to the 1936 and 1977 Soviet Constitution. But how was the Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet selected? Was the chairman of the supreme soviet also the chairman of the presidium of the supreme soviet? Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The function of Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was only instituted as part of the perestroika reforms in 1989, which abolished the function of Chairman of the Presidium. The Chairman of the Supreme Soviet was elected by the Congress of People's Deputies of the Soviet Union, which was also formed in 1989. I think the choice for the Chairman of the Presidium before perestroika was effectively made by whoever was at the time the paramount leader of the Soviet Union, which was usually the General Secretary of the Communist Party and often the same person. --Lambiam 11:29, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the choice was de facto made by the paramount leader. But typical Soviet practice was to have a de jure procedure as well. Both the 1936 and 1977 constitutions state that the Chairman of the Presidium was to be elected by a joint sitting of the Supreme Soviet (see Article 48 and Article 120 respectively). If the Wikisource copy of the 1988 constitution is correct (it's unsourced and in userspace, so it might not be), then Article 119 has a detailed procedure for the election of the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet. Matt's talk 16:55, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 1977 constitution was amended in 1988 as part of the perestroika reforms, and the office for which the new Article 119 describes the election procedure is that of Chairman of the Supreme Soviet. The earlier Article 120 does not describe the actual procedure; it is consistent with a procedure in which there is a single slate of candidates, with one name for the candidate for Chairman of the Presidium, and the votes of the deputies (in favour / against / abstain) are cast in public. --Lambiam 20:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin de-emphasized the idea of an individual Soviet state leader because he didn't care to assume such a position himself (Stalin was almost totally unconcerned about fancy-sounding titles and offices, as long as he had the reality of despotic power) and any other person holding such a position would almost inevitably become a rival to himself, in some respects. Stalin really didn't want another Alexei Rykov, who was chosen as state leader before Stalin consolidated his personal power; it took Stalin 5 or 6 years to get rid of Rykov... AnonMoos (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2

Backchannel communication between the belligerents in WW2

Can anyone recommend a good book about backchannel communication between the belligerents in WW2? I’m especially interested in communication between USSR and Germany while they were at war. Benjamin (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are some allusions in a popular book about Strategic Deception (not well-received by all historians) by Anthony Cave Brown called Bodyguard of Lies (Harper and Row 1975, 947 pages, ISBN 978-1-59921-383-5). that is very sympathetic to German officers, such as Claus von Stauffenberg and the 20 July plotters, who wanted to approach the Western Allies through various back-channels (usually about dumping the Nazis and uniting against the Red Army). The other question about German-Soviet communications is also interesting.

—— Shakescene (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 3

Towns of The Bahamas

For Local government in The Bahamas#Towns, I was able to find 32 town areas in the 2022 contested elections report, but this 2019 report says there should be 41. I'm wondering if some weren't included because there were candidates running unopposed? I've had trouble finding a straightforward list of town areas on Bahamas government web sites; does anyone have access to a good source for that? -- Beland (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the minutiae of Jamaican electoral practice, but in some other parts of the world (such as my own), not all constituencies of some administrative levels have their elections in the same year. For example, half or a a third might hold elections in one year, a half in the next or next but one, and so on. Something similar may be going on here: see Staggered elections. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.104.88 (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino, and Saint Marinus's church

The page on San Marino mentions that Saint Marinus founded San Marino in 301 upon building a church (the page on Saint Marinus himself specifies "chapel and monastery.") Meanwhile, the Basilica di San Marino was constructed in the early 18th century on the site of an earlier 4th-century church that was demolished due to its poor condition. I have some questions:

Is this former church the same as the one that Saint Marinus founded?
1. The basilica's page states that this old church was also dedicated to Saint Marinus; given that Saint Marinus was presumably canonized after he died (traditionally, in the mid-4th century), was the church dedicated to someone else prior?
2. Actually, for that matter, when was Saint Marinus canonized?
Are there any depictions of this old church prior to demolition?

GalacticShoe (talk) 01:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for this area, but I understand that in Roman-Celtic Britain, at any rate, such religious leaders were in this period commonly recognised as Saints while still active. 'Sainthood' was often a matter of local acclamation, and perhaps recognition by a local Bishop, rather than the result of some formal canonisation process, and not necessarily approved by or even even known to the central authorities in Rome. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.198.104.88 (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section Dedication of churches § Naming a church only describes early practices in England and Wales, but these were probably not radically different from what was customary elsewhere. In fact, the source on which the description in out article is based begins its exposition with, The history of the dedications of churches in England is largely that of the dedications of churches in other parts of Catholic Christendom.^[6] --Lambiam 07:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And in the Church generally, offices could be filled by public acclamation. Anatolius, bishop of Laodicea, who saved Christians in AD 262 by marching them out dressed as women, was acclaimed at Caesarea and ordained deacon, priest and bishop in one ceremony (not to be confused with Anatolius, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople in AD 449). 2A00:23C7:9CC0:F901:E5FB:171C:8FDE:8F18 (talk) 13:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Canonization § Historical development, canonization only became the exclusive prerogative of the Pope in the 12th century. --Lambiam 15:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all very much for the clarification. GalacticShoe (talk) 01:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest manuscripts mentioning Saint Marinus and his life date from six centuries after his death, so all we know about him, including his claimed building of a chapel–monastery on Monte Titano, or even his presence there, is the stuff of legend. (This appears to be inconsistent with the statements in Basilica di San Marino § History, unless the document La Vita di San Severino referred to does not mention the name "Marino".) Our article on Monte Titano states, "According to the legend related to the Mount and its precincts, a small monastery existed on top of the Mount during the 8th century." --Lambiam 15:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Egippius wrote in Latin. The Latin title is Commemoratorium vitae Sancti Severini,^[7] so there is no reason to use an Italian version of the title on the English Wikipedia. The name "Marinus" occurs in the text of the English translation of the book,^[8] but refers to an unrelated person. --Lambiam 15:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like AD 262 wasn't a good year for Christians. Henry Wace and William C Piercy (eds), A dictionary of Christian biography and literature (London 1911) recounts how "Marinus", who was about to be promoted to centurion, was denounced as a Christian by a rival. The judge sentenced him to death, sentence suspended for three hours to give him time to recant. As Marinus left the court, the bishop took him into the church. Lifting his cloak to reveal the sword at his side, he presented him with a Bible and asked him to choose. The soon-to-be-martyred Marinus took the book without hesitation. 2A00:23C7:9CC0:F901:B1F8:2B12:99E9:A29B (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to lie, I at first misinterpreted this as the bishop lifting his own cloak to reveal a sword, threatening poor Marinus here into choosing the Bible. GalacticShoe (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to research this, Lambiam. Given that the Commemoratorium vitae Sancti Severini doesn't seem to mention the right Marinus at all, I think it might be worth scrubbing it entirely from the pages on San Marino. Also of note, the Placito Feretrano, also mentioned throughout Wikipedia pages on San Marino, mentions the monastery explicitly, perhaps being the source of that legendary 8th-century monastery. It should be pointed out though that it is ostensibly an 11th-century copy of a supposed earlier document, and as such there are doubts about its authenticity. GalacticShoe (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 4

Citing a U.S. Gov't officials' letter, which was not sent and is a draft version.

I'm working on an article of my late father who died in 1972. Please feel free to review my article for a full understanding of my question and concern. The article: (User:Wdallen49/Bobbie R. Allen) contains citation #2 which is an eight page PDF document scanned from originals contained in my late fathers' files. This letter is obviously a DRAFT, thus never sent, but I believe a final version was sent by the author. I am not able to obtain a copy of the original nomination letter which was sent at this time. My question is, does Wikipedia allow citations of documents such as this? thanks very much for your assistance. Wdallen49 Wdallen49 (talk) 03:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple related issues with a source like this. First: it is a primary historical document, so any interpretation of it in any context must be done with care and cross-checking; for WP, primary sources are very limited in usage except as part of a secondary citation, or in a plainly self-referential manner, stuff like that. WP:PRIMARY is the main policy, and WP:HISTRS is the essay with a section on primary sources in articles on historical topics (as this is).

The second issue, assuming this document is to be used in an appropriate manner in the article, is that the document upload has no provenance (provided documentation of origin or curation). Where is the original document it was scanned from, or electronic archive it is licensed from? Are the archives considered reliable sources for historical documents, or mixed up or cross-contaminated with a lot of junk? Are the archives accessible in theory or practice by some WP researcher or editor who wants to absolutely authenticate this stuff for a thesis? (WP:V) That kind of thing matters.

If it's just a document found in your father's papers or something, then it can't be used in the article as scanned on Commons. However, that doesn't mean you can't start asking around archivists and librarians to see if someone might have a copy in some official archive somewhere, or if not, if someone would be interested in verifying and archiving your copy. If it's important to the larger story, or missing elsewhere, then that's one possibility you might consider to pursue this further. SamuelRiv (talk) SamuelRiv (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What was the geopolitical status of early Soviet-adjacent republics like Bukhara, Khorezm, Turkmen, and Uzbek?

I've been working on the territorial evolution of the Soviet Union. I've done a ton of preliminary work but I have a few questions that my own research hasn't helped too much yet.

First, the nature of a union republic. What I do know is:

30 December 1922: The Soviet Union is formed by, among others, the Russian SFSR, which either includes or surrounds the Bukharan and Khorezm PSRs.
20 October 1923: The Bukharan PSR becomes socialist and is redesignated the Bukharan SSR.
19 September 1924: The Khorezm PSR become socialist and is redesignated the Khorezm SSR.
27 October 1924: The Bukharan and Khorezm SSRs are dissolved/reorganized into the the Turkmen and Uzbek SSRs.
13 May 1925: The Turkmen and Uzbek SSRs become union republics.

So, my questions are:

Were Bukhara and Khorezm actually part of the Soviet Union? Or were they technically independent, like Tuva? Or would they perhaps be considered territories, a la Kansas Territory in the U.S., considered part of the country but not fully part of the political structure?
Likewise, what about the Turkmen and Uzbek SSRs between their formation and being admitted to the union?

The info I have on that last bit comes from http://www.libussr.ru/doc_ussr/ussr_2469.htm which, when run through Google Translate, reads " The 3rd Congress of Soviets of the USSR welcomes with satisfaction the free expression of the will of the peoples of the Turkmen and Uzbek Socialist Soviet Republics on the entry into the USSR of the Turkmen and Uzbek Socialist Soviet Republics. " So there was definitely a national status change, but I'm trying to figure out to what degree.

So the tl;dr of this is, if you want it distilled: Between 27 October 1924 and 13 May 1925, what was the geopolitical status of the Turkmen and Uzbek SSRs, with relation to the Soviet Union? --Golbez (talk) 15:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And if anyone knows a website or community that might have people who know, that would be great to know. Thanks! --Golbez (talk) 20:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy links: Bukharan People's Soviet Republic, Khorezm People's Soviet Republic, Turkmen Soviet Socialist Republic, Uzbek Soviet Socialist Republic, History of the Soviet Union. What I understand from reading our articles, the Bukharan People's Soviet Republic was originally independent but joined the USSR, renamed Bukharan SSR, on 19 September 1924. Likewise, the Khorezm People's Soviet Republic was renamed Khorezm SSR and joined the USSR on 20 October 1923. Both were shortlived, divided up by redrawn borders on 27 October 1924, resulting in the formation of the Turkmen SSR and Uzbek SSR. --Lambiam 21:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I said exactly all that above. --Golbez (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Though, you're incorrect: No source says Khorezm joined the USSR on Oct 20 1923., or that Bukhara joined on Sept 19 1924. Just that they were renamed. Part of this is, I haven't been able to find any source who explains their status during that time. Were they part of the Soviet Union before becoming SSRs? --Golbez (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously (IMO), the renaming was on the occasion of their accession to the Union. The lead of our article History of the Soviet Union states that the four original founding republics (the Russian SFSR, Ukrainian SSR, Byelorussian SSR and Transcaucasian SFSR) were joined in 1924 by the Bukharan People's Soviet Republic and Khorezm People's Soviet Republic. This cannot be quite correct if the Khorezm PSR ceased to exist nominally in 1923. (Disclaimer: I have not consulted sources outside of Wikipedia, and some of this information in our articles is not cited to sources.) --Lambiam 13:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Obviously (IMO), the renaming was on the occasion of their accession to the Union." Perhaps, but I can't source your opinion. And then there's still the question of the Turkmen and Uzbek status. --Golbez (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's probably no satisfying final answer to the question. The Emirate of Bukhara was already a Russian protectorate from 1873, so it was neither part of Russia nor fully independent of Russia. The Soviets' views on nationality, borders, and socialism in one country vs proletarian internationalism were also unsettled at this time. Here's one academic paper that may be useful: [9]. Here's also a snippet from the Bukharan PSR constitution that declares it to be "a single, indivisible and independent state within the limits of its present state frontiers". [10] --Amble (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, thank you. That academic paper was helpful - the idea that they initially acted with an independent foreign policy, and then, "Though Bukhara and Khwarazm were legally independent states in a treaty relationship with the USSR, they were made part of the process of the national-territorial delimitation of Central Asia that produced two (and eventually five) union republics," with the footnote of, "They were referred to as dogovornye respubliki, treaty republics, unlike the soiuznye respubliki, union republics, that were a part of the USSR," which might well be the answer to my Turkmen and Uzbek question as well. I'll need more research into that part, but this seems to settle for me that the Khorezm and Bukhara PSRs were nominally independent but wholly within the Soviet sphere, probably akin to Tuva (though less so, since the Soviets actually recognized Tuva).

So, since you found that bit of gold, got anything on the Turkmen/Uzbek question? :) --Golbez (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only things I can find for the "SSR" stage are very emphatic on which classes hold power (workers and peasants in charge), and of course those classes are united regardless of borders. (For example [11]). Here's another article that might be interesting: [12] --Amble (talk) 00:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 5

Mentally ill MP in 1861

In the 25th May 1861 issue of Punch 'Essence of Parliament' (page 209) we read "MR. ROEBUCK had been informed and believed that in the minority against the Repeal of the Paper Duty, there appeared a gentleman who was not mentally qualified to take part in any business at all. The Member for Sheffield brought the subject before the House, and an explanation of the case was offered by a friend of the individual in question. It was stated that the mind of that person had been perturbed, and that he had voluntarily retired to an asylum, into which he could not be received until two medical men had given a certificate couched in language so strong as perfectly to justify inquiry whether the document were a formality or a representation of facts. But it was also stated that the Member alluded to was placed under no restraint, and choosing to come from the Asylum to the House, did so, conversed rationally, voted, and went away quietly. Mr. Punch, having recorded the circumstances, leaves an unpleasant subject, with the single remark that though, as it happened, the registration of the vote was of no consequence, it will be well that whippers-in on both sides use sound discretion when any similar case again arises. In these days people are not so reverent as of old, and cause for a certain kind of talk should be avoided. The rule is not now quicquid delirant * * * plectuntur Achivi, in regard to Kings, Lords, or Commons." What I would like to know is - who was the individual in question, and did he make any kind of recovery? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 03:15, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A little googling finds this blog entry, which identifies the MP in question as Andrew Steuart, MP for Cambridge. That's all I have for now. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:33, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A little more here in The Spectator, and here in The Lancet, both from 1861. No news as to his later health, although he retired from the Commons in 1863, and lived to be 82. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here he is in the divorce courts in 1870. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Captain D'Agoust

This painting from May 6, 1788 didn't show him properly. Can you search if exist another one who showed only him very full in face, and upload it on commons? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.103.13 (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hundred Days

What were the Royal regiments send by Louis XVIII to arrest Napoleon, and their respective commanders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.103.13 (talk) 15:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancien regime in France

In 1789, before the revolution, where was the Military Tribunal and who were its judges? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.103.13 (talk) 21:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]