Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 June 15

= June 15 =

What did the FO have on Williamson?
In we read the words of Winston Churchill in a letter to Clemmie "The Williamson episode now appears vy murky behind the scenes. I shd have thought his peerage quite justified: but it now appears that the Foreign Office dossier is rather disagreeable. This is a secret". The ODNB says "Williamson was caught up in the scandals surrounding Lloyd George's abuse of the honours system. At the same time he attracted criticism because it was widely thought that his firm had traded with the enemy during the First World War" but it's not clear that this is what was in the FO dossier. Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * says, among other things, that Williamson's peerage was one of the ones that blew the lid off the Lloyd George scandal, to wit "Also proposed for a peerage was Sir Archibald Williamson, an oil tycoon who was accused of having traded with the enemy during the war, via South America. The body responsible for managing the wartime blockade of Germany, the Foreign Trade Department of the Foreign Office, compiled a large file on Williamson's activities, which had led to his licences to trade being withdrawn for a period during the war. 'The firm's record was putrid,' concluded a report to the Foreign Secretary, Lord Curzon. Intercepted letters from the firm contained instructions on how to trade with the enemy while staying within the strict letter of the law. Nonetheless, in 1922, Williamson was elevated to the peerage as the 1st Baron Forres. Although he defended himself vigorously against all the charges against him, it is likely that Williamson chose a territorial title in order to expunge his surname from public memory." Basically, he used his firm and his connections to the Lloyd George government to help Germans violate the blockade.  The dossier had evidence of his actions in the form of intercepted letters that implicated him.  -- Jayron 32 16:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Of course the Tories' main objections to Lloyd George's sale of honours were that 1) Too many Jews, Scots, and businessmen were buying them, 2) Too few people who'd been to the right schools (either of them) or the right universities (either of them) were getting honours, and 3), and most importantly, they were only getting 50% of the take. DuncanHill (talk) 17:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The only good thing about a politician is if, once they are bought, they stay bought. -- Jayron 32 17:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Why does the Supreme Court need input from the Justice Department, in order to decide whether to take a case?
I just read this:. Can someone explain briefly what this means, without getting too "legalistic"? The Supreme Court is deciding whether or not to take a case that it was presented with. What exactly is it asking of the Justice Department? And what does the Justice Department have to do with anything, anyway? I am totally confused. Thanks! 32.209.55.38 (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * In other words, why can't the Supreme Court just make a decision on its own? ... (which it presumably does ALL of the time) ... Why would they think that they need "outside help" to make what is a "routine decision"? Thanks.     32.209.55.38 (talk) 03:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This is the Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College case. First, take anything from the Daily Mail as a grain of salt, as consensus on Reliable sources/Perennial sources has determined that it is unreliable (personally, I find several of the Daily Mail's articles poorly written). More to the point: the Justice Dept. is involved because last year under Trump's direction when the case was being heard in the Federal Appeals Court, they filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the students suing Harvard, seeking to end those affirmative action practices in its student admissions. Now that the Justice Dept. is under Biden, and Democrats generally are more supportive of affirmative action, it is more likely to do a 180 degree turn and support Harvard's side instead. I guess the Supreme Court is giving the Biden administration this courtesy to offer revised arguments, knowing that Trump can no longer make his, as the "official position" of the current administration. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, an Amicus curiae or friend-of-the-court brief basically allows any third party, whether the current administration or some average Joe, to offer outside help to a court when it is considering a routine decision. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In this article I have found, it states that the Supreme Court's invitation to Biden's Justice Dept. for a revised position had no filing deadline or a mandatory order ... which means that the Justices could literally procrastinate/avoid making a decision on this hot-button issue indefinitely ... maybe that is the real reason for this ... Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Supreme Court is often reticent to decide issues which it considers to be political questions. The fact that a party to a case could arbitrarily argue both sides of the matter depending on which political party happens to be in power at the time seems to be a clear indication of the political nature of the question at hand, and thus the Court's shuffling-of-feet in response to having to deal with such things.  -- Jayron 32 14:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I might ask on RD/L when reticent became a synonym of reluctant. —Tamfang (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2021 (UTC)


 * You make a good point. But, in this case, I don't think that the Justice Department is a party to the case.  They are merely a third-party "looker on" / "observer". (I think?)   In a case like this, there were probably dozens of amicus briefs included, from all sorts of organizations.  Why would the Supreme Court go out and seek one amicus for clarification on their position ... but not all the other (presumably) dozens of amici?  Also, if it's a "political question" ... can't the Supreme Court just say "this is a political question ... so we don't get involved".  They've done that before.  Also, this really can't be a political question ... (out of reach of the Court) ... since they have already addressed it many, many, many times in past precedent.   No?    32.209.55.38 (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Here ya go: . --47.155.96.47 (talk) 02:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! 32.209.55.38 (talk) 18:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Swift J, and Woolmington v DPP
In our article Woolmington v DPP we read that "At the Bristol Assizes, Judge Swift ruled that the case was so strong against him [Woolmington] that the burden of proof was on him to show that the shooting was accidental. The jury deliberated for 69 minutes. On February 14, 1935 he was convicted (and automatically sentenced to death)" Is this Swift Rigby Swift? Thanks, DuncanHill (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, according to this. DuncanHill (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

A mysterious poem
Google has failed me, but perhaps one of you folks knows the answer. While reading Dr. Thorndyke's Casebook - specifically the story called "The Touchstone" - I came across a few lines of unattributed poetry. The poem quoted involves a character referred to as an "aged, aged man" who "Sometimes searched the grassy knolls, For wheels of hansom cabs." It sounded interesting and I wanted to read the whole thing, but as I said, Google failed to produce any results outside the Casebook itself. Does it ring a bell for anyone? Wikignome Wintergreen talk 19:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * First hit from Google is Haddocks' Eyes. Matt Deres (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, it was searching for "searched" instead of "search" that led to null results. Thanks! Wikignome Wintergreen talk 19:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, but I just copied this text from your post into Google: Sometimes searched the grassy knolls, For wheels of hansom cabs. Matt Deres (talk) 19:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I was doing an exact search (i.e. with quotes around the phrase) because I - foolishly - assumed that R. Austin Freeman had checked his source to make sure he was quoting it correctly. Obviously not. Dr. Thorndyke would be ashamed. Wikignome Wintergreen talk 22:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It was Jervis quoting it, so the error is his, not Freeman's. DuncanHill (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the page in Google Books, I think it's arguably not an error. It's laid out this way:


 * ...I wandered among the bushes and the little open spaces, peering about me and reminding myself of that "aged, aged man" who


 * "Sometimes searched the grassy knolls
 * for wheels of hansom cabs."


 * He transposed the poem into the past tense because the aged, aged man did that at the time of the action in the poem, i.e. in the past. Imagine someone thinking of Fort McHenry and musing about whether "that star-spangled banner yet waved over the land of the free and the home of the brave".  In recording that thought, you are thinking about the time of the battle, which is in the past, so you have to transpose the song lyrics into the past tense.  In extremely picky writing, like an academic paper, you might indicate the change by using square brackets ("[waved]" or "[searched]") or by closing and reopening the quotation marks, but in a work of fiction I don't think that degree of pickiness is warranted. --184.145.50.201 (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Good point. DuncanHill (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for defending Jervis's honor. The poor guy usually can't catch a break, it seems. Wikignome Wintergreen talk 01:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Japanese imperial name and title
When referring to Hirohito in English, is "Showa Emperor" an alternate correct form of "Emperor Showa" or an error? I was under the impression that it was S.E., but the article seems to indicate that E.S. is the primary form. Nyttend backup (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * In English, the usual order of a name-cum-title designation is " ". In some languages, including Japanese, the order is "  ", so President Obama in Japanese is オバマ大統領 (Obama Daitōryō). Likewise, Hirohito became 昭和天皇 (Shōwa Tennō). There is no good reason to retain the Japanese order when translating this.  --Lambiam 08:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * With Chinese emperors, apparently we use Whatever Emperor (e.g. Daoguang Emperor and Jiaqing Emperor), not Emperor Whatever, and in both cases they're era names (Japanese usage follows Chinese usage) rather than personal names, as if we used nicknames in European contexts, e.g. "Revolutionary Emperor" or "Indian Empress" for Napoleon I of France and Victoria of the UK, respectively. So I'm doubtful that it's merely a matter of English word order.  Nyttend backup (talk) 12:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am looking at my Canadian Press style guide. While it doesn’t address Japanese names specifically, the principles and examples given show the ideal for the CP is to respect the form of a name that the individual prefers. Some quotes from the Names section: “In general, the names of people should be given in the spelling and form they normally use.” “In Chinese, Korean and many other Asian names, the family name comes first: Roh in Roh Tae-Woo. But westernized people often put the given name first: Morris Lee.” "For Arabic names, use an English spelling that approximates the way the name sounds in Arabic. If an individual has a preferred spelling in English, use it." "In transliterating a Russian name, use the English phonetic equivalent where one exists. But with Russiam emigre names, follow the individuals' preference." “For Spanish and Portuguese names, the only safe guide is the way the individuals use them.” 70.67.193.176 (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't think of a worse name to use for this example than Morris Lee. Temerarius (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Morris Morris? or someone from this list RudolfRed (talk) 00:39, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I doubt that the preference of Shōwa will provide guidance. Also, titles are not really part of the name. --Lambiam 19:30, 16 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Incidentally I've known some Chinese people to use the form Jackie Chan Kong-sang, a portmanteau of the conflicting traditions. —Tamfang (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)