Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

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.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 17

Change of plea from Guilty to Not Guilty

In the case seen here: https://www.dfa.co.za/news/twist-in-child-porn-case-26228161 What would the point be of changing your plea to not guilty after you have already been found guilty, surely this would worsen your sentencing? Thanks Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 12:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

from your link: "his previous legal representative compelled him to plead guilty.". This seems a good enough reason to change, isn't it? Even if, most certainly, the previous legal representative was right to push the guilty plea, and it is a bad idea to enter a not guilty plea. Gem fr (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Possibly to preserve the right to appeal on the grounds of having inadequate legal representation. I think in at least some legal systems you can only appeal a criminal verdict if you plead "not guilty". Admittedly I'm not too familiar with South African law. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

June 18

Why didn't Britain and France demand unconditional surrender from Germany in 1939-1940?

Why didn't Britain and France demand unconditional surrender from Germany in 1939-1940? Unconditional surrender became an Allied war aim, but only starting from 1943 when the US and the USSR were both already in the war. Why didn't Britain (and France) demand unconditional surrender from Germany earlier--specifically before the Fall of France? Futurist110 (talk) 03:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

What leverage did they have to have made such a demand? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Their military might (or at least their potential military might), of course. Futurist110 (talk) 03:47, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Right. Military might. That's why France never got invaded and D-Day didn't happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

AFAIK, France's rapid collapse and fall was unexpected--including by the Germans themselves. It was apparently a huge surprise even for the Germans. Futurist110 (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Whether that's true or not, nobody expected Germany to rapidly collapse and fall. So any demand for unconditional surrender would have been premature. That's all there is to it. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 06:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Technically speaking, though, Germany still had a lot of fight left in it as late as 1943. Futurist110 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

A country needs to invade another country before demanding surrender. France probed German defences in 1939 but were forced to retreat back to France.
Sleigh (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Allied troops weren't yet on German territory either when the Allies demanded unconditional surrender from Germany at the 1943 Casablanca Conference, though. Futurist110 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

It was not even a probe: orders were to stay at least 1 km away from Siegfried line. This says it all about the prevalent mindset (not a mindset to demand unconditional surrender...). Gem fr (talk) 14:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, to begin with, a surrender is a military thing from the victorious leaders to the defeated (just like an armistice is a military agreement, different from a political peace treaty). British and French tradition separates the military from the politics, and find it bad to have military decision taken by politicians, and vice-versa; of course then do talk, and obviously it is best for generals to be backed by their political leaders, but they don't need to. A surrendering question was irrelevant in 1939 or 1940, considering the course of the war. Even in 1918, after total allied victory, armistice of 11 November 1918 was NOT unconditional.

Besides, even if you consider its political aspects, why would they? Such a demand is useless, and tantamount to "we don't want to make peace with you, only to destroy you". This certainly wasn't their mindset: it takes time (or some traumatic Pearl Harbor event) to switch from 1938 "let preserve peace whatever the cost" to 1939 "now that's too much, we fight (but not that much)" to 1943 "the hell with you, we will crush you into total submission and don't want to even hear a word from you". Germany was an enemy, not the Evil incarnate you see it now, after the war and the German atrocities revelation.

Gem fr (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the US didn't have as clear of a military-political distinction as Britain and France had? Also, I wonder if Britain's and France's stance in regards to unconditional surrender would have changed had France not fallen and had Britain and France began pushing the German forces back into Germany--and especially if in response to a defeat in France the Nazis would have began murdering the Jews under their control en masse. Futurist110 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

An obvious difference is, that the POTUS was the Commander-in-chief, whereas in UK and Fr the government did rule the army just as everything else, but the army is still a special body with its own head. Gem fr (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Then again, I think you misunderstand what a surrender is. It basically depends only on the military situation and the way it is expected to change if fighting goes on (how much hate and respect the warring parties have for each other makes little difference. When a political leader issue some "no negotiated surrender" (or even worse "no surrender at all") order (whether for his troops, or enemy's), he enter military domain while showing of knowledge of it, proving himself stupid, weak, distrustful of his army, and disrespectful of his people. For some reason, it seems that Fr and UK still understood this, while Roosevelt, Hitler and Stalin (backward people thinking they were the future) did not.Gem fr (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Have you ever seen any information suggesting that this was considered? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:13, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

As discussed in the linked article, "unconditional surrender" means total capitulation, with the victor being able to do whatever they like to the loser (international laws aside). No one is going to surrender unconditionally therefore, unless they absolutely have no choice. Which, as others have said, generally requires you to destroy their armies, invade and occupy their territory, and generally be in a position to say "or we'll just kill all of you, and there's nothing you can do about it", which the Allies at that time were not. So if you demand an unconditional surrender, and are not in position to enforce such conditions, the other side are likely to refuse (whereas they may agree to a conditional surrender). Iapetus (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the internal German opposition was actually willing to agree to a conditional surrender before the Fall of France, though? Futurist110 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Or they might just laugh at the other country for displaying such chutzpah. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Stalin and Mao are having a war. First day: Russians take 1 Million prisoners; second day: 2 millions; third day: 3 millions. At this point Mao wires to Stalin: "OK, you got it, now? I demand unconditional surrender" Gem fr (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

China then proceeds to defeat the Soviet Union using a massive stampede! Futurist110 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

_{Mao decided to fight India. The plan was one small war of attrition in the 10 to 20 million death range at each place where the border drops under 20,000 feet high. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:30, 19 June 2019 (UTC)}

Futurist110 -- even leaving aside that the Allies simply weren't in any military position to make such demands, unconditional surrender has been at least partly kind of a U.S. thing since the Battle of Fort Donelson in 1862. FDR introduced it into WW2 allied decision-making later in the war, with somewhat ambiguous results. AnonMoos (talk) 13:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Europeans never demanded unconditional surrender before the 1940s? Futurist110 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

To piggyback on this excellent point -- it's not just that the USA used unconditional surrender in 1862, it's that they used it in the context of crushing an internal rebellion. The demand for unconditional surrender implies that the conquered force has no right to an independent existence. Even when the USA/Britain/France were gobbling up tiny ethnic groups in their colonial conquests, they would usually make a show of negotiating with the Indians/Africans/etc. --M@rēino 14:34, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That "internal rebellion" fit the constitutional definition of treason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The thinking behind requiring an unconditional surrender was to avoid a re-run of the First World War, which had finished with an armistice which came into effect before any Allied troops had actually entered Germany, allowing German nationalists to claim that they had been defeated at the conference table rather than on the battlefield. This statement of British war aims by Anthony Eden (Churchill's Foreign Secretary), from May 1941, clearly requires German regime change, but there is little idea how that might be achieved: "We cannot now foresee when the end will come. But it is in the nature of a machine so rigid as the German to break suddenly and with little warning". Note that in May 1941, the British were still seriously expecting a German invasion attempt. Alansplodge (talk) 13:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Alansplodge, for future reference, the first sentence isn't 100% right. See File:Western front 1918 german.jpg or similar maps: France seized a small portion of Oberelsaß (Upper Alsace) in the Battle of the Frontiers, retained it through the years of trench warfare, and was still holding it at the Armistice. Nyttend (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction Nyttend (although a Frenchman would tell you that Alsace wasn't really Germany at all). The point about the need for a complete German defeat was made in the Alanbrooke War Diaries, although frustratingly I don't have my copy to hand. Alansplodge (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Very interesting link! Thanks! I'll make sure to check it out! Futurist110 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

By the way, the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942 uses the phrase: "Being convinced that complete victory over their enemies is essential to defend life, liberty, independence and religious freedom...". It was not until the US and the USSR were onside that a clear route to winning the war could be envisaged. Alansplodge (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense. Futurist110 (talk) 01:41, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Weather conditions were bad at the time, and those of the porcine persuasion could not take off. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

June 19

Certiorari in Scotland

If someone is convicted of a crime under Scots law and wishes to appeal it, what do we call the document that he or his lawyer will file, comparable to a writ of certiorari in common-law anglophone jurisdictions? I ran across [1], which clearly says that there is no certiorari concept in Scots law (one existed from 1707 but was abolished in the mid-19th century), but the article doesn't appear to address what takes the place of this concept, or what's closest. Google searches for <certiorari scotland> are almost entirely false positives, either pages missing one word or the other, or things that mention both words in another context, e.g. the certiorari reference in United States v. Scotland Neck Board of Education. Nyttend (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

See the links under "How do I appeal?" at Scottish Courts website - criminal. DuncanHill (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

June 20

Elections where one party won the most seats but didn't get first stab at forming a governing coalition?

Which elections were there where one party won the most seats but didn't get first stab at forming a governing coalition? So far, I could think of the 2009 Israeli election and the 2010 Iraqi election. However, what other examples of this have there been? Futurist110 (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you interested in semipermanent coalitions? In Australian federal elections, I suppose Labor normally gets the largest number of seats, since it's opposed to a two-party coalition. For example, the federal House of Representatives currently has 15 National members, 61 Liberals, 68 from Labor, and 6 miscellaneous. Since the majority (76/150) were from the semipermanent Liberal-National coalition, they formed the government, even though Labor had the most seats. Nyttend (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that would certainly count for this. Futurist110 (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, there is the 1996 Israeli elections. Labor won the most seats in the Israeli Knesset in the 1996 Israeli parliamentary election while Likud's Benjamin Netanyahu won the Israeli Prime Ministership in the 1996 Israeli prime ministerial election. Back then Israel's Knesset and Israel's Prime Minister were elected separately--a practice that was abolished in 2003. Futurist110 (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

In the 2017 New Zealand general election, the National Party won a plurality of the seats, but lost its support parties. There were negotiations with the smaller New Zealand First party but the latter chose to enter a coalition with the Labour Party instead. I recall subsequent reports that NZF was only using the talks with National to gain themselves a better position with Labour, possibly because National ministers had embarrassed their leader earlier in the year.-gadfium 04:19, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Very interesting! Futurist110 (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

July 1932 German federal election.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Good one! Seriously. Futurist110 (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

It's common in many countries with proportional representation which tends to give many small parties and no dominant parties. In 2015 Danish general election, the third largest party formed a one-party government. It did have political support from the second largest party but not the largest. In 1990 Danish general election, the largest party had more than twice as many seats as number two which formed a government with number three, supported by several other parties. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Books written by pioneers/settlers about their experience

What books or other written works have there been which were written by pioneers/settlers about their experience? For the record, I am thinking not only of American pioneers who settled westwards, but also Russian pioneers in Siberia, the Far East, and Central Asia, Canadian pioneers who settled westwards, Zionist Jews who settled in Palestine in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Brits who settled in Australia in the 18th and 19th centuries, Europeans who settled in North Africa (Algeria, Libya, Eritrea, et cetera), Europeans who settled in other parts of the Americans when they were sparsely populated, et cetera.

Anyway, any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 19:04, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

• Ezra Meeker wrote a considerable quantity of books about his experiences, and given he lived to be 97, he had plenty of them. His current biographer is on his fifth book about Meeker, I reviewed a few of the chapters some months ago but haven't seen it out yet.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this information! Futurist110 (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

For the Pacific, there are a lot of missionary perspective . In Hawaii, there is Hiram Bingham I with Residence of Twenty-One Years in the Sandwich Islands: Of the Civil, Religious, and Political History of Those Islands, Laura Fish Judd with Sketches Of Life In The Hawaiian Islands and the French perspective from Charles de Varigny Fourteen Years in the Sandwich Islands, 1855–1868. In Tahiti, you have The History of the Tahitian Mission: 1799-1830 by missionary John Davies (missionary) (although published a century later) and missionary and diplomat George Pritchard (missionary) wrote The Aggressions of the French at Tahiti: And Other Islands in the Pacific, Queen Pomare, and Her Country and The Missionary's Reward: Or, The Success of the Gospel in the Pacific. KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Not too far west for Canada, but Susanna Moodie and Catharine Parr Traill wrote about settling in 19th-century Ontario. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Plenty of books have been written about the opening of the American West, including classics by Willa Cather and Laura Ingalls Wilder. Also interesting is the novel cycle The Emigrants by Vilhelm Moberg about the experience of Swedish pioneers in Minnesota. Xuxl (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Death of Matthew Flinders

What was the cause of death for Matthew Flinders? KAVEBEAR (talk) 20:42, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Apparently an undiagnosed kidney infection leading to renal failure (or so says the Flinders Memorial website, [2]). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Professor Kenneth Morgan (Brunel University, London) says it was "a severe bladder complaint" in this article.

The Life of Captain Matthew Flinders, R.N. (London, 1914) by Ernest Scott, says that it was "a recurrence of the constitutional internal trouble which had occasioned some pain in Mauritius" (p. 395). Alansplodge (talk) 21:52, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Strange to see much speculated and disagreed about his cause of death but its absence for the Wikipedia page. KAVEBEAR (talk) 21:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps neither he nor his widow wanted his urinary tract discussed in public. Alansplodge (talk) 21:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

No comment on the wikipedia article issue, but worth remembering this is someone who died in 1814. This was for example, before the Germ theory of disease was widely accepted. I don't think some uncertainty over the cause of death is that surprising especially if you are looking at different sources over long time periods (and so probably vastly different levels of understanding of human health) and with uncertainty over precisely what sources they looked at to come to their respective conclusions. According to [3], the plan was to look for evidence for his cause of death after his body was rediscovered earlier this year, but I couldn't find anything that came from that. I suspect what's left of his remains aren't going to provide that much clue anyway since we seem to know enough that we're already confident his death wasn't violent. Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I have now amended the article to read: "Flinders died, aged 40, on 19 July 1814 from a urinary tract infection,[30] on the day after the book and atlas was published". I used Stephan Schulz's reference as it has more detail. Good work team. Alansplodge (talk) 09:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I had more spare time than I thought so I also added his London address - now somewhere under the British Telecom Tower - and also Scott's anecdote about how the newly published books were laid out on the bed covers so that the unconscious Flinders could touch them. Alansplodge (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Do we really have enough to say UTI? A gravelly complaint sounds like kidney stones to me. DuncanHill (talk) 14:11, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Both the modern sources use the word "infection", and both bladder and kidneys form part of the urinary tract. I don't think you can die from kidney stones, although admittedly they hurt like hell (original research). Alansplodge (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

"The number of deaths due to kidney stones is estimated at 19,000 per year being fairly consistent between 1990 and 2010" according to the article to which I linked. DuncanHill (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I stand corrected. Alansplodge (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

June 21

Who was the R J Thompson who worked with Frank Owen?

I am trying to find out who the R J Thompson who co-wrote His Was the Kingdom ("an anti-Baldwinite, pro-Beaverbrookish account of King Edward's abdication") with Frank Owen, the journalist and Liberal MP, was. In John Simpson's Unreliable Sources, and several other works, he is described as the editor of the Evening Standard, but he does not appear in the list of editors in our article. DuncanHill (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

He was sacked [4]. 2A00:23A8:830:A600:1D73:B053:262C:D32E (talk) 18:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

June 22

Anglo-Saxon and French relations

Was there any diplomatic relationship between France and Anglo Saxon England before 1066? KAVEBEAR (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Are you joking? William the Conqueror's claim on the throne was based on his kinship to Edward the Confessor, one of the sons of Emma of Normandy. Emma being the consort of both Æthelred the Unready and Cnut the Great.

The earlier Anglo-Saxon monarchs had close affiliations to the Merovingian monarchs even before the Gregorian mission (596):

• "In 595, when Pope Gregory I decided to send a mission to the Anglo-Saxons, the Kingdom of Kent was ruled by Æthelberht. He had married a Christian princess named Bertha before 588, and perhaps earlier than 560. Bertha was the daughter of Charibert I, one of the Merovingian kings of the Franks. As one of the conditions of her marriage she had brought a bishop named Liudhard with her to Kent as her chaplain. They restored a church in Canterbury that dated to Roman times, possibly the present-day St Martin's Church. Æthelberht was at that time a pagan but he allowed his wife freedom of worship. Liudhard does not appear to have made many converts among the Anglo-Saxons, and if not for the discovery of a gold coin, the Liudhard medalet, bearing the inscription Leudardus Eps (Eps is an abbreviation of Episcopus, the Latin word for bishop) his existence may have been doubted. One of Bertha's biographers states that, influenced by his wife, Æthelberht requested Pope Gregory to send missionaries. The historian Ian Wood feels that the initiative came from the Kentish court as well as the queen."
• "The choice of Kent and Æthelberht was almost certainly dictated by a number of factors, including that Æthelberht had allowed his Christian wife to worship freely. Trade between the Franks and Æthelberht's kingdom was well established,and the language barrier between the two regions was apparently only a minor obstacle as the interpreters for the mission came from the Franks. Another reason for the mission was the growing power of the Kentish kingdom. Since the eclipse of King Ceawlin of Wessex in 592, Æthelberht was the leading Anglo-Saxon ruler; Bede refers to Æthelberht as having imperium, or overlordship, south of the River Humber. Lastly, the proximity of Kent to the Franks allowed for support from a Christian area. There is some evidence, including Gregory's letters to Frankish kings in support of the mission, that some of the Franks felt they had a claim to overlordship over some of the southern British kingdoms at this time. The presence of a Frankish bishop could also have lent credence to claims of overlordship, if Liudhard was felt to be acting as a representative of the Frankish Church and not merely as a spiritual adviser to the queen. Archaeological remains support the notion that there were cultural influences from Francia in England at that time." Dimadick (talk) 18:29, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Louis IV of France was raised in England - the French even called him "d'Outremer", "from across the sea". Adam Bishop (talk) 19:16, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

June 23

GJohn dating

Here's an easy one. When was the gospel of John written? (How much later than Mark?) It's kinda hard to google Biblical stuff and get academic sources. It seems like this is something that should be on our page for the book! You know, on the sidebar to the right. you know, | release _date = 1 Jan 90 or whatever. (Yes, I know we don't have a specific date, but I'm sure we know roughly.) Temerarius (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I had always heard it was around 90 AD, which Gospel of John also says (90-110 or so). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Here are two sources: Britannica gives c. 100 CE. The Catholic Encyclopedia says "the last decade of the first century, or to be still more precise, to 96 or one of the succeeding years" (based on a text from 200 CE that says it was written after John returned from Patmos, and other sources which say Domitian recalled the Patmos exiles in 96). 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Only a thesis, but An Analysis of the Arguments for the Dating of the Fourth Gospel sets out the various debating points clearly and lists which scholars support which hypothesis. Alansplodge (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Lloyd George & Hirohito, and who else? And where are they?

Megan Lloyd George, David Lloyd George, Hirohito, Margaret Lloyd George, and others

In the attached picture we see in the front row, from left, Megan Lloyd George, David Lloyd George, Hirohito, and Margaret Lloyd George. I would be interested to know who the other people in the picture are, and to confirm that it was taken at Chequers. The file page gives a date of 15th May 1921. According to Rowland, Peter (1975). "The Man at the Top, 1918-1922". Lloyd George. London: Barrie & Jenkins. p. 536. ISBN 0214200493. on the 15th "he entertained Hirohito, the Crown Prince of Japan, at Chequers…" but that is all I know. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks like picture was taken at same time as youtube video youtu.be/rBeElh81rBQ (seems I am not allowed to link it directly). Vid doesn't have a caption option so I can't tell you if the sound is useful or indeed if there is sound, but a person who can hear it could. The title card does confirm Chequers, at least. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:31, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. If no one turns up a real caption. The Japanese wiki article on the visit lists a number of Hirohito's top aides on the tour; you might search through their articles for leads? (Prince Kan'in Kotohito, Chinda Sutemi, Takeji Nara, Isamu Takeshita, Setsuzō Sawada, Koshiro Oikawa, Yoshinori Futara, and some others without English articles). Another possible candidate is the Japanese Ambassador, Hayashi Gonsuke (diplomat). 70.67.193.176 (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for the video link - there is no sound so you didn't miss anything there. I'll take a look through the other articles you linked. DuncanHill (talk) 20:29, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! I guess that is par for the period. At least we got the where answered, even if we're still looking for the who.70.67.193.176 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

The newsreel can also be seen at the British Pathé website here. DuncanHill (talk) 20:32, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Croatian concentration camps During WWII

I noticed that none of the concentration camps in Croatia are on the List of Nazi concentration camps even though some where run by the Nazis directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.11.149 (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Which article are you talking about? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

List of Nazi concentration camps seems like a good candidate. OP, please confirm, and please remember to provide relevant wikilinks in future so others don't have to make (possibly wrong) assumptions or lengthy searches, which just delays answering you – our 5.8-plus million articles provide too many multiple possibilities (on any topic) for guesswork.

If my guess was correct, the answer is stated in the lede (first paragraph) of that article: it is a selection of (only) 68 out of about 1,200 listed by a West German Government report in 1967, while another source estimates (perhaps on different criteria) a total of some 15,000. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.177.55 (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Also remember that the nazi concentration system had all sort of detention facilities, victims being moved from simple police custody to internment camp to final extermination camps. And those facilities would also serve other purpose, a person detained would not automatically end in extermination camp. So the cut off is not that easy, as usual in real world. Gem fr (talk) 07:59, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

The complete list of concentration camps with Wikipedia articles would be at Category:Nazi concentration camps by country. Notably there is no section for Croatia, because it was not a country at the time, though there are several articles on concentration camps in Yugoslavia. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:45, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, there was the Independent State of Croatia (not recognized by the Allies)... AnonMoos (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

June 24

Identical twins with significantly different lifespans

Which identical twins had significantly different lifespans? So far, I could think of William Frankland. He is still alive right now at age 107 while his identical twin brother died in 1995 at the age of 83. That's a 24+ year lifespan difference between them in spite of the fact that they are identical twins and thus share the same DNA. Futurist110 (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

List of twins lists about 17 who died shortly after birth, for example, Liberace (twin died as an infant), Elvis Presley (twin brother died at birth), Ed Sullivan (twin brother died as an infant), William Randolph Hearst (twin died as an infant). I don't know which, if any, of those were identical. Their articles might say. I don't think DNA has much to do with it.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

What about excluding those who died during infancy or childhood? Futurist110 (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

same DNA won't prevent different exposure to accident, disease, etc.Gem fr (talk) 08:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This isn't uncommon. This study analyzed twin pairs in the US military (who had both survived the war), with dates of birth between 1917 and 1927. Even though fraternal twins did have greater variation in lifespan, both types of twins had gaps between death dates. If I'm reading it right, for pairs where only one twin had died by age 63-74, the gap was already on average 15 years. Here's another example that found an average 10-year difference in life expectancy for identical twins. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

One famous example is Norris McWhirter and Ross McWhirter, founders of the Guinness Book of Records. The book used to note that they "are not only identical twins, they have almost identical biographies"—until Ross was murdered at age 50. Norris lived to 78. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 10:24, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

2026 Winter Olympic host city

What hour will it be (Eastern Time) when I hear the host city is known?? Georgia guy (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't get an answer in time. Links for completionists: 2026 Winter Olympics and Milan and Cortina d'Ampezzo. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

A. H. Barrett

I have several original art works by A H Barrett and was wondering if anyone knows the value of these. A google search only finds others asking the same question. Any assistance would be deeply appreciated. Anton 81.131.40.58 (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Best idea is to look for publicly listed auctions of his work, either in the news or in auctionhouse websites, and see if the sale price is given. If you can find auction houses or auction sites that have sold his work, but not the price, you can contact the curators to ask what his work sells for. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Origin of the "traditional" Anglo-French animosity?

A recent after-dinner conversation with some friends has divided us into two camps. Some maintain that the intermittent hostilities between English and French (which basically ended with the defeat of Napoleon) began with the Norman Conquest of 1066. The other side claims it is significantly older, starting soon after the Anglo-Saxons moved into the area and came into conflict with the Franks. Which side is closer to the truth? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Traditionally, the era when the two countries were enemies is considered as lasting from the Capetian–Plantagenet rivalry to the defeat of Napoleon. Before that, there were only sporadic clashes (and 1066 can be seen as an internal English affair, with a member of the extended family being brought into the conflict; France as a state was not involved). See Anglo-French Wars. Xuxl (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

To some degree it could be just due to geographical proximity (which can lead to friction in many ways) -- sometimes a phenomenon can be observed where nations dislike other nearby nations, but like nations which are one degree more distant. For example, there was enmity between France and England, but a long-standing alliance between France and Scotland. Traditionally, Poles dislike both Germany and Russia, but like the French. Also, for a long time Bulgarians looked up to Russia as a kind of "big sister", etc. AnonMoos (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

+1. Nations usually war with their neighbors, and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It takes an even stronger common enemy to force neighbors to ally (Russia or Germany, in the Anglo-French case), and generations, that is, centuries, for old grudges to turn into joking material Gem fr (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Religion comes into it. The British get on quite well with the Dutch (one of their Protestant monarchs ascended the British throne). 92.31.143.72 (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

June 25

What was the point of this statement by Representative John Farnsworth?

I have previously read this 1966 article by Alfred Avins in regards to the views of the draftsmen of the 14th Amendment in regards to anti-miscegenation laws:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/524cc5a7e4b09484086dc046/t/552d54b3e4b07a7dd6a08bf5/1429034163395/Avins_Miscegenation+and+14th+Amend+Original+Intent+1966.pdf

On page 1231 of this article, Avins quotes Republican US Representative John F. Farnsworth as saying this:

"[Rep. Rogers] . . . refers to another bugbear with which to scare ignorant people, that of amalgamation. He recites the statutes of various States against the intermarriage of blacks and whites. Well, sir, while I regard that as altogether a matter of taste, and neither myself nor my friends require any restraining laws to prevent us from committing any error in that direction, still, if my friend from New Jersey and his friends are fearful that they will be betrayed into forming any connection of that sort, I will very cheerfully join with him in voting the restraining influence of a penal statute. I will vote to punish it by confinement in the State prison, or, if he pleases, by hanging-anything rather than they should be betrayed into or induced to form any such unnatural relations.25"

My question here is this--what was the point of Farnsworth's comment here? I mean, wouldn't any hypothetical attempt to impose the death penalty for miscegenation in Washington DC (which is where US Congressmen lived while Congress was in session) be struck down by the courts as being unconstitutional due to it violating the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishments? If so, what was the point of having Farnsworth say that he would vote for something that would be declared unconstitutional by the courts?

I get the general point of Farnsworth's statement here--I just want to know why exactly he alluded to the death penalty for miscegenation if such a punishment for such an offense would have been declared unconstitutional by the courts.

Anyway, any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I would not be so sure that the Supreme Court would have ruled that way, or that anyone would expect it to. The various states used to execute for far lesser offenses than we are used to today. The Supreme Court did not even begin to narrow the acceptable uses of capital punishment until relatively recently when they prohibited its use as a punishment for rape, though by then most states had voluntarily narrowed its use. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This was clear irony. I modern parlance, he was trolling Rogers Gem fr (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Futurist110 -- it's wrapped up in 19th-century rhetorical style, but the clear implication is that he's sarcastically saying that if Rogers is worried about being unable to control his cross-racial lusts, then he'll support a bill with disincentives to reinforce Rogers' wavering will-power... AnonMoos (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

This sort of rhetoric, saying that giving blacks civil rights did not mean giving them equal social rights, was common then. Lincoln made similar points in the Lincoln-Douglas debates, especially the ones held in Southern Illinois.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:41, 25 June 2019 (UTC)