Humanities desk
< January 19	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 21 >

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.

January 20[edit]

Where can I find US presidential appointments?[edit]

The Library of Congress has an amazing archive of congressional proceedings, the record, the laws, the whole deal. But I'm struggling with finding executive branch documents, relating to appointments for positions. For example, all the sources say John Henry Kinkead was appointed governor of Alaska by Chester A. Arthur on July 4, 1884. I just ... want to see the document. As good as the government is at serving legislative documents, it doesn't seem nearly as good with executive documents. Does anyone know ... I don't even know how to begin searching for it. 'old presidential appointment documents' brings me to the Compilation of Presidential Documents but that only has results from 1993. I don't even know how I would begin searching or referencing this document, but it must exist, right? Or must have at some point? Anyway. Grasping for any help I can find here. Would very much like some primary sourcing, because the third parties did not keep good records.

But it's an official document (or transmission or statement, not sure what form it took), there has to be some record of it. The closest I came was when I found a reference in the 1893 Congressional Record to the appointment of James Sheakley, but that was a recess appointment, and I suspect that's the only reason it was communicated to the senate. I haven't checked others, but the frustration with finding more primary info on Kinkead led me here. --Golbez (talk) 05:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oho, looks like what I might be looking for is the "Executive Journal"? Found a promising link at [1] so here's hoping. --Golbez (talk) 05:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Golbez. Have you considered asking from assistance from the professional librarians at the Alaska State Library? Cullen328 (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't yet, but this is going to be a general issue, not just Alaska. --Golbez (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then please consider reaching out to other state libraries. I think that every state has one. Cullen328 (talk) 06:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not all executive orders are specific to some state. --Lambiam 14:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No such appointment is found among a database of Arthur's presidential documents for the month of July 1884^[2] (nor any other records in this database^[3]). --Lambiam 14:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out he was nominated on June 27 and confirmed July 4. But again this shows how hard this stuff is to search for, and it's irksome. --Golbez (talk) 16:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Attributed, possibly/probably apocryphal[edit]

In relation to quotations:

Attributed means some source has claimed the person said/wrote this
Apocryphal means the same, except scholars seriously doubt the truth of the claim, but have not categorically ruled it out as false.

I've come across a sort of hybrid descriptor:

Attributed, possibly/probably apocryphal.

I don't see the point of it. If a quote is attributed, that means we simply don't know whether it's true or not. Anyone is free to research it and either confirm it or disprove it. But in the absence of anyone casting doubt on it, how can it be said to be "possibly or probably apocryphal"?

For context, the place I found this usage was in Gyles Brandreth's Oxford Dictionary of Humorous Quotations, 5th ed., 2015 Thanks for your thoughts. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 11:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can you clarify what you need references for? It isn't quite clear. Do you need references for the definitions of the terms "attributed" and "apocryphal"? It would be helpful to us trying to find references for you if we had a little more information. --Jayron 32 14:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the only place; Brandreth's predecessor Ned Sherrin did likewise,^[4] and we see the same in Elizabeth Knowles' Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations.^[5] All quotes that are not taken directly from a published work or speech by (or an interview with) the alleged enunciator, but are reported by someone else, are "attributed", but in many cases there is no reason to question the correctness of the report. The very act of writing "perhaps apocryphal" means the author of the compendium of quotations casts aspersions on the authenticity – whether by following some earlier doubting Thomas or because they could not find a more precise ascription (such as to a specific document or event), telltale signs of made-up attributions. Or, as Einstein put it, "most things I have said I haven't". Sherrin explained his use as follows: A source note, usually including the specific date of the quotation, follows the author information. Quotations which are in general currency but which are not at present traceable to a specific source are indicated by ‘attributed’ in the source note; quotations which are popularly attributed to an author but whose authenticity is doubted are indicated by a note such as ‘perhaps apocryphal’.^[6] Brandreth merely followed suit. --Lambiam 14:42, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that was Yogi Berra and not Einstein... or was that the joke? --Jayron 32 14:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is a garbled version of the first full sentence Einstein spoke as a toddler, when he said, "Most things I will have said I haven't yet." --Lambiam 15:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would suggest that Berra borrowed that expression from Einstein, thus violating his own rule: "If you can't imitate him, don't copy him." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Don't believe Yogi Berra. He's full of shit" --Mark Twain (attributed, possibly apocryphal) --Jayron 32 18:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you can never know if they are genuine." (Abraham Lincoln) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC) [reply]

User:Lambiam has nailed it, with my thanks. My only quibble with Sherrin, Brandreth and their ilk is that "apocryphal" includes the concept of "attributed", so there's no need to write "attributed, possibly apocryphal". Simply writing "possibly apocryphal" would seem to fit the bill nicely. But who am I to quibble with the Oxford monolith? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In these compendious works the term attributed is used with a quite specific meaning: "not traceable to a source, yet generally attributed (to this specific attributee)". Some quotations that are deemed "perhaps apocryphal" can neverheless be traced to a source. For example, a quotation of Coolidge's summary of a sermon about sin is traced here to a 1933 book of 'short stories about "Cal"' compiled by John Hiram McKee. So as defined and used in these works the term is not redundant. However, the choice of the term attributed is indeed curious; this summary of a sermon is attributed to Coolidge, but not in this strange Oxonian sense defined (originally?) by Sherrin. As I assume that these works do not contain quotations that are both untraceable and not generally attributed to some specific attributee, they could have used untraceable instead. The next question then is whether untraceable quotations are not always also (not only "perhaps" but even) "probably apocryphal". "Untraceable" is definitely more concise than "attributed, perhaps apocryphal". --Lambiam 11:29, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can only agree. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20 July plot[edit]

The Nazi investigation had concluded that Heinz Brandt and Leonhard von Moellendorff weren't members of the conspiration, but some hystorics ipotized the contrary. Can you find official sources about they weren't? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.95.138 (talk) 15:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the second person, the hypothesis he was involved in the conspiracy appears only once, in History Today, 1953. Other found references are repeats after that. The assertion comes from a journalist's comment, who is also known as an historian, although as a literary historian. My reader's impression is purely that his narrative flows better with the comment than it would without. --Askedonty (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but can you found an attendible source which definitely tell he wasn't a conspirator? And also for Brandt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.95.138 (talk) 17:28, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would more readily name not to be a conspirator, one way or the other, a non-existent notion in totalitarian systems. Even Heinrich Himmler tried to defect at one point. --Askedonty (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In any way, can you search if there are sources about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.95.138 (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you would be meaning "comments", not sources. "Sicherheitsdienst" was not distributing certificates of exemptions, not without some serious pressure applied before. Von Moellendorff was not identified as having been awaiting orders of mutiny, that's all. --Askedonty (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then for Brandt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.117.95.138 (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"One of those present in the conference room and injured during the blast would later be accused of being involved in the plot. General Adolf Heusinger (..)" [7]. A certificate regarding Brandt was delivered on the orders of Hitler to his family, for what this may be worth (apparently there must have been enquiries going on). --Askedonty (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A positive proof of non-involvement is virtually impossible to give. It would need something like that Brandt and Moellendorff had been hospitalized since 1943, or had been travelling to Australia and did not return before 21 July. Kaltenbrunner, tasked with finding the conspirators, conducted a sweeping operation to find and eliminate officers who were not fully loyal to the Führer, also without specific evidence of actual involvement in the failed plot, having them executed by the thousands. So he did apparently not find anything that made him question Brandt's or Moellendorff's loyalty. That is about the extent of what can be said. --Lambiam 19:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who was Campbell-Gray[edit]

An unanswered question at Talk:Coronation of George V and Mary queries the provenance of the photographer who created File:Prince of Wales with Princess Mary 1911.png, which is given as Ian Douglas Campbell-Gray (1901-1946). Unless the royal family were employing a 10 year-old boy, this cannot be right. The image itself, copied from eBay, has the caption "taken (by Campbell-Gray) at Buckingham Palace...". The same image is at the National Portrait Gallery, but only listed as "Campbell-Gray". So can we get a positive i/d on this royal snapper? Alansplodge (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The dates for Mr. Ian Douglas are wrong. This indicates that he was active from 1890 to 1920, which would have made it very likely he took said picture. --Jayron 32 15:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is wrong. DuncanHill (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Campbell-Gray were a photographic studio, see this article. DuncanHill (talk) 15:19, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Actually, it looks like that's not right. The credit Campbell-Gray is likely to a photography studio known as "Campbell Gray", which appears to have been named after two people, Campbell, and Gray. See [8], which lists the business as "Campbell-Gray Ltd" and a former name as "Campbell & Grey", the & implies to me these were two different dudes. --Jayron 32 15:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Grey" must be a typo; see the attributions here and here, both from 1902. --Lambiam 18:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks all. A. J. Campbell and C. E. Gray it is. Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]