Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 November 12

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 12

Balance of power in US Senate for 2021

There is much talk of the "balance of power" in the US Senate (for 2021) resting on the results of two Georgia senatorial elections (or run-offs). Why does Georgia have two senators facing election in the same year? I thought that the Senate was divided into 3 classes (Class A, B, C ... or Class 1, 2, 3) ... such that both senators from any given state are in a different class and, therefore, in a different election cycle. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

That is normally the case, but one of the races is a special election to replace a senator who resigned. See 2020 United States Senate special election in Georgia. --Khajidha (talk) 04:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I looked at that. So, they are having both a regular election and a special election at the same time. For the winner of the special election ... do they get a 6-year term? Or do they just "finish up" the balance of the retiring guy's term? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Finish up the balance of the term. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

The same will apply to whoever is appointed to fill Kamala Harris's senate seat. That person will only serve out of the balance of the term and not a full six years. RudolfRed (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

For full details see Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. --47.152.93.24 (talk) 17:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Circassians: Italian and Russian language sources help request

Greetings,

1) While working on Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları (Ottoman women slave markets) I came across Circassians related following 1592 AD quote of Lorenzo Bernardo, Venetian Ambassador in a self published source. But I guess that would be available in Italian or Russian language alternate sources, can some one help out making it available

"...Turkey is bordering with Adyghas and Mingrelians, who represent something like slave mine, whom they take to Constantinople like cattle and sell them in auctions..." By Lorenzo Bernardo, Venetian Ambassador 1592 AD

2) There are three Scholarly research in Russian language by scholars of Circasain descent. I am looking for help in some gist from following which may be used in Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları or Circassians

• • Emilia Sheudzhen’s “The Adygs (Circassians) in Historical Memory” (Moscow and Maikop, 2010),
  • Fatima Ozova’s “Studies on the Political History of Circassia” (Pyatigorsk and Cherkessk, 2013),
  • and Marina Khakuasheva’s “In Search of Lost Meaning” (Nalchik, 2013).

3) While Circassians women slavery in Ottoman empire is lot eulogised, Own Circassians women voices seem to be scant. I am looking for Circassians women's folklore or folk songs which might be covering slavery issues.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 04:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

References

As to item 1, I suspect the original report from the Venetian ambassador is contained in: E. Alberi, Relazione degli Ambasciatori veneti al Senato, Series III,^[1] a multi-volume work that only major or specialized libraries would have. Your best chance may be to ask the author for his source. I think the Circassian Benevolent Association should be able to assist in establishing a contact, if the author is still alive – he should be 93 now and the Russian Wikipedia only gives a birth year for him, and last year he was awarded the 2019 CRO Lifetime Achievement Award,^[2] but as a literary prize in his name has recently been established,^[3] I am not so sure.  --Lambiam 17:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Greetings @ User:Lambiam, I came across similarly matching Italian wording snippet "...Nella relazione sull ' Impero ottomano dell ' ambasciatore veneziano Lorenzo Bernardo , del 1592 , si dice che la Turchia confina con i Circassi e i Mingreli che « si offrono come miniera per l ' estrazione degli schiavi , poiché si preoccupano..." @ Lorenzo Bernardo "Miscellanea di studi storici, 2. (Collana Storica di Fonti e Studi, 38.) Genoa: Istituto di Medievistica, Università di Genova, 1983. This seems to be journal. I am not sure if this can be used as reliable source, any ways I will try to confirm original source too if possible. Thanks and very nice support of you. Warm regards Bookku (talk) 11:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

That passage with a quote of ambassador Bernardo is indeed sourced to Alberi, as I suspected, and specifically to p. 388 (no indication of the volume, but perhaps they are numbered consecutively). This is from an article in a serious scholarly publication, published under the auspices of an institute of history at a university, so I think it can be used as a reliable source. The full reference to the article is: E. S. Zevakin and A. Penčko, "Ricerche sulla storia delle colonie genovesi nel Caucaso occidentale nei secoli XIII-XV", translated from the Russian by Maria Teresa Dellacasa, in Miscellanea di studi storici, vol. 1, (Genoa: Fratelli Bozzi, 1969), pp. 7–98. It is not clear whether this should be considered a journal; it is more like a series of books, since volume 2 only appeared in 1983. The full text of the relevant passage, which occurs on p. 41, is: "Nella relazione sull'Impero ottomano dell'ambasciatore veneziano Lorenzo Bernardo, del 1592, si dice che la Turchia confina con i Circassi e i Mingreli che « si offrono come miniera per l ' estrazione degli schiavi, poiché si preoccupano di guadagnarsi la vita trasportando gli schiavi a Costantinopoli a guisa di bestiame e vendendoli sulla pubblica piazza »." Translation (credit to Google Translate): "In the 1592 report on the Ottoman Empire by the Venetian ambassador Lorenzo Bernardo, it is said that Turkey borders on the Circassians and the Mingrelis who 'offer themselves as a mine for the extraction of slaves, since they are concerned about earning a living by transporting slaves in Constantinople in the guise of cattle and selling them on the public square'." I have not investigated whether the Russian text of the article has been published as such.  --Lambiam 12:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@ User:Lambiam Many thanks for your valuable proactive and informative support. Thanks again and regards Bookku (talk) 07:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

What publisher does 'Typis Caroli Georgi Univ. Typogr.' refer to?

I'm currently looking at this book, a doctoral thesis published in Latin in 1876 at the University of Bonn. A quick Google search reveals many other works whose publishing is attributed to Typis Caroli Georgi Univ. Typogr. What publisher does this Latin name refer to? ~★ nmaia ^d 10:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

There was a "Carl Georgi Universitäts-Buchdruckerei" in Bonn [4], serving as the local academic publisher for Bonn University. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

For the meaning of the Latin term typis, see here, sense 5.2. Caroli Georgi, Universitatis typographi means "of Carl Georgi, printer of the University"; "Carolus" is the Latinization of the German name "Carl", and "the University" is the University of Bonn (see the word "Bonnae" one line up). So together it means "From the printery of Carl Georgi, printer of the University of Bonn".  --Lambiam 19:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks like it was printed by Charles George of Bonn, but published by a... Frederica Wilhelma University of the Rhein? Temerarius (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's the University of Bonn's official name, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität (our article has a bit more info about the background of that name.) But the university isn't technically the publisher here, it's just where it was submitted as a PhD thesis. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:05, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Fredericius Guilelmius is a Latinized adjective corresponding to the name "Friedrich Wilhelm". It has feminine endings here because it is governed by Universitas, which is feminine in Latin (like all words ending in -itas).  --Lambiam 20:32, 12 November 2020‎ (UTC)

Who was "Colonel Sir Charles Waterhouse"?

Our article George Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston mentions a Sir Charles Waterhouse as involved in the shenanigans over the succession to Bonar Law. The source given, Mosley, Leonard (1961). Curzon: The End of an Epoch. pp. 264–275. calls him Colonel Sir Charles Waterhouse, and says he was Personal Private Secretary to Law. The only google hit I get for "Colonel Sir Charles Waterhouse" is the Mosley work. Now, there was a Captain the Rt Hon Charles Waterhouse, but he was neither a colonel nor a knight. Was he the person Mosley meant? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

• Bonar's PPS in the early 1920s was Lieutenant-Colonel Sir Ronald Dockray Waterhouse (1878-1942). MilborneOne (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@MilborneOne: Many thanks - he's in Who Was Who, Waterhouse (2008). "Waterhouse, Lt-Col Sir Ronald". Who's Who. A & C Black. doi:10.1093/ww/9780199540884.013.U233166. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |othernames= ignored (help) (Subscription or UK public library membership required.) which confirms that. He ought to have an article here IMO. Now, what to do about our use of Mosley? Our reliable source is obviously unreliable on this point! DuncanHill (talk) 14:26, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I would correct the name in the article but add a footnote describing the difference from the original text. Alansplodge (talk) 08:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

This source gets the first name of Law's private secretary right but explicitly absolves Stamfordham from having conveyed Davidson's memorandum to the King. The full passage is:

"Davidson appraised Curzon and Baldwin in a long memorandum, stating chiefly that in this democratic age it would seem advisable for a prime minister to be in the House of Commons. Did Davidson deliver this to Stamfordham or to the King? He did not. The memorandum, of which Law knew nothing, together with Law's letter of resignation, were conveyed to the King by Colonel Ronald Waterhouse, Law's principal private secretary."

The discrepancy with Mosley thus extends quite a bit beyond Waterhouse's first name. A more complicated story, in which Waterhouse delivers Law's resignation letter to the King but leaves the anti-Curzon memorandum he allegedly co-wrote with Davidson with Stamfordham, is found here in a richly sourced source; the source given for that particular statement is "Dawson diary, June 17 1923 in Wrench, p. 219",^[5] where "Wrench" refers to: John Evelyn Wrench (1955), Geoffrey Dawson and Our Times. Other sources have yet other versions; there is Davidson's Memoirs of a Conservative (too involved to be necessarily reliable), and secondary sources may be preferable, but they too can get it wrong. This source even makes Waterhouse Baldwin's "own Private Secretary".  --Lambiam 08:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Oh what a tangled web they weave! Waterhouse was Baldwin's PPS when Baldwin was PM, according to Who's Who. DuncanHill (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Electoral College in the 2020 elections

In a nutshell, why Biden was declared the winner of the elections and president-elect before the Electoral College vote on December 14? Especially since there were elections in which the winner lost the popular vote. Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 22:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Why was Trump declared the winner in early November 2016?[6] Why was Obama declared the victor in early November 2012[7] and 2008?[8] Clarityfiend (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "declared". He hasn't been declared the winner in any legally binding sense. Not all the states have even "certified" their results yet, and challenges post-certification are possible (as happened in 2000). But barring very unlikely scenarios, it's clear that Biden will get more than 270 electoral votes on December 14, and various news organizations have taken notice of that fact, which is all it means to say that they have "declared" him the winner. --Trovatore (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Quite simply because the most likely result based on the unofficial vote totals is that a majority of EC electors will be pledged to vote for Biden, which all but guarantees he will be elected President. The practice of calling someone President-Elect before the EC meets, and even granting that person special resources to establish a transition team, more or less makes it clear that the person who appears to have the most pledged electoral votes within a few days of the election will win the presidency. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

According to the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, passed in the aftermath of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the head of the General Services Administration has the authority to ascertain the likely winner based on projections from decision desks of reliable media sources. This is a legal finding that grants the incoming president-elect with significant government resources and guaranteed access to the top leadership of every federal agency. In every presidential election since then, with the exception of the long contested 2000 Bush/Gore election, the authorization has been issued promptly when all major media decision desks have projected a winner. Only the Trump administration has failed to ascertain a winner, and has blocked the president-elect from accessing the resources guaranteed by law. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, if the Biden campaign’s entitlement to these resources is so clear it’s surprising he hasn’t sought mandamus relief from the courts yet, if only to protect the peacefulness and effectiveness of the transition of power. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

It may be to Biden's political advantage to take no legal action and instead let Trump make a fool of himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

That would be outrageous. If Biden is entitled to those resources then his willful refusal to seek them through legal process is to hamstring his own transition. Letting Trump “make a fool of himself” to the detriment of the Republic is frightening. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Fighting outrage with outrage doesn't necessarily work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:55, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

If Trump and his administration are already ignoring the legal requirements, what makes you think they would respect any legal process Biden were to pursue? --Khajidha (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

It looks like Klain, Biden's chief of staff, will be the point man on any litigation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Surprisingly for America, it isn't a matter for the courts (yet). The law provides certain funds and access for the presidential transition, but the definition -- when the successor is acknowledged as President-elect -- only kicks in when the Electoral College (or, if necessary House of Representatives) votes. If the incumbent wishes, as have all normal presidents in recent history, he may gracefully facilitate the transition by playing nice. DOR (HK) (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, there's no entitlement to those transition resources. It's a discretionary matter. 199.66.69.13 (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the date is NOT the electoral college vote. The date defined by the law is "the day following the date of the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2," and states "The terms "President-elect" and "Vice-President-elect" as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2." This is straight from the text of PL 88-277, the law in question (bold mine). The Administrator of the General Services Administration, in this case Emily W. Murphy, is supposed to begin the process. She has, as yet, refused to acknowledge Biden as the winner, so technically she's the one holding things up. But the date for the transition is determined by law to be the day following the completion of the general election to determine the electors, i.e. November 4. --Jayron32 17:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

• Technically, Biden should be referred to as “President Presumptive” (or some similar term) until he is officially elected by the electoral college (which will occur on December 14th). Yes, this is pedantic, but doing would help people understand the process. Blueboar (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

  That would be a neologism created for this election. They are always referred to as the President-elect as soon as the election is mathematically known. --Jayron32 17:29, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I will concede that I was suggesting a neologism, but not that I created it for this election (I made the same argument in 2016, and in 2008). The point is that, every 4 years, there is a period of about a month (between the general election in November and the meeting of the Electoral College in December) when we presume who WILL be elected the next President even though his or her election has not yet taken place. We need a more accurate way to describe this. Blueboar (talk) 18:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

It's standard usage. What confuses you about it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

On 9 November 2008 Blueboar referred to Barack Obama as "President Elect."[9][10].95.145.0.52 (talk) 19:11, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

There's discussion at Talk:Joe Biden. The example given is "The Olympics is scheduled to begin in August 2020" v "The Olympics will begin in August 2020". I don't think editors are obliged to take account of black swan events which are most unlikely to happen. 95.145.0.52 (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking back through Newspapers.com, the term "president-elect" has been used in this way since at least the Polk election of 1844. Random other instances: Lincoln in 1860, McKinley in 1896, FDR in 1932, Eisenhower in 1952 and JFK in 1960. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump's lawyer doesn't like it but it's actually quite dangerous to not stick to the advice of the 9/11 commission and postpone the transition. Count Iblis (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

And do you think that, if the boot were on the other foot, his lawyer would be having even the tiniest doubts about the result? Americans love winners, and they respect gracious losers. Petulant losers with nothing to offer but their petulancy and narcissism and vacuous threats of legal action, well, they're another story. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Some Americans seem to like people, though, who keep fighting against all odds.  --Lambiam 12:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Weirdly, Sly Stallone was born on the same day as George W. Bush. Anyone who can't see a conspiracy there just doesn't have their eyes open. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

It's obvious they were switched at birth. (Who you gonna believe: an anonymous Internet guy or your lying, lying eyes?) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

You can't hide them. Maybe you should try disguising them, thinly, with a smile. --Trovatore (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

What did the 9/11 commission recommend not postponing?? —Tamfang (talk) 09:50, 19 November 2020 (UTC)