Humanities desk
< November 25	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 27 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an 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 26

majority government in belgium netherlands norway sweden denmark italy france spain portugal uk

When was the last time that Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark, Italy and France and Portugal ever had a single party majority like Canada has a Conservative Party majority and Spain's People's Party majority? What about U.K.? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.21.57 (talk) 03:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The most recent election in Norway has its results located at Norwegian parliamentary election, 2009. From the infobox there, you can find previous elections, and work through all of them so you, yourself, can answer your own question for Norway. I got to that link from Parliament of Norway. If you replace the word "Norway" with the name of the country you want, you can find links to parliamentary elections for any country you wish, and can likewise work backwards to answer your own questions. --Jayron32 04:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the Labour Party had a majority throughout the 2005-10 Parliament. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And every parliament between 1997 and that one, just as the Conservatives had a majority for years before then. Hung parliaments are very rare in the UK, as they are in most first past the post systems. --Tango (talk) 14:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Double standard

Why anti-Soviet armed Islamists were called freedom fighters, and anti-American armed Islamists are called terrorists? --Roiuty (talk) 09:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might find this useful. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources also choose terminology based on what the people are believed to be doing. For example, if they attack civilian non-governmental targets like marketplace bombings then they are more likely to be called terrorists. If they attack military targets then Americans often call them insurgents as in Taliban insurgency. See also Resistance movement#Freedom fighter. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I very seriously doubt whether any mainstream media sources in the U.S. ever called the forces involved in the Invasion of Dagestan, or shahidkas, or other manifestations of the international Wahhabite jihad which surfaced in the Caucasus around that time as "freedom fighters". However, Afghan fighters in the 1980s were sometimes called that because the Soviets imposed a crude and heavy-handed coup on Afghanistan, installing in power a tiny faction of semi-bezbozhniki who were conspicuously unable to gain the confidence and support of the majority of the Afghan populace. The United States in the 1970s actually accepted that Afghanistan was more or less in the Soviet sphere of influence, and would not have objected too greatly to discrete Soviet political manipulations intended to maintain that status -- however, the Soviets went way over the line (from the U.S. point of view) when they embarked on some kind of half-assed and poorly-thought-through (yet brutally violent) attempt to semi-Sovietize or semi-Communize the country. You can tell most of what you need to know about Afghanistan ca. 1980 just by looking at File:Flag of Afghanistan (1978-1980).svg, which shows the national flag of Afghanistan replaced by the banner of one faction of the Afghan Communist Party (not even the Afghan Communist Party as a whole, but just one faction of it...). AnonMoos (talk) 14:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also note that the US didn't use the term "terrorists" for the Islamists who fought against US-backed governments in Egypt and Yemen, with the exception of any who set off bombs designed to kill civilians. Incidentally, that type of attack also seems the least likely to effect the political changes the Islamists want. StuRat (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Glancing through the google news archives from the 80s, the term "freedom fighters" wasn't actually used all that much. It is often seen in direct quotes from Reagan and other government officials and it is often placed in scare quotes. There are also quite a number of articles discussing the freedom fighter/terrorist distinction. --JGGardiner (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I always enjoy the irony of Western cold war heros John Rambo (in Rambo III) and James Bond (in The Living Daylights) fraternizing with exactly the same people doing exactly the same things (fighting a foreign power meddling in their country, using mostly the same tactics) that today are called terrorists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is/was there a country known as the Democratic People's Republic of the Congo?

It's probably a misnomer of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but the term seems rather familiar to me, and Google shows that quite a few documents on UN-related websites using the term. Was it ever an official name of either of the Congos, or simply a persistent mistake people tend to make? --Paul_012 (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, no, nor did either state use the equivalent French name (which was a possible explanation). I would guess any post-1997 reference is meant for the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but from 1970–1991 it would be more likely to refer to the People's Republic of the Congo - during this period, the current DRC was Zaire. Shimgray | talk | 13:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was a People's Republic of the Congo (now Republic of Congo]] and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (formerly Zaire) but never a Democratic People's Republic of the Congo. The PRC was communist and Zaire was a dictatorship, but they are now both democracies (I think). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The DR Congo just held elections which went... anyway, they went, and hopefully everyone will accept the results without too much trouble. The current Republic of Congo is nominally a democracy, but is still run by a man who used to be President under the old one-party system, was kicked out once multiparty democracy was created, and then again took power after a civil war, who in 2002 ran unopposed, and whose election in 2009 was marked by accusations of irregularities and fraud. Make of that what you will. Buddy431 (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prison in Europe

What country in Europe has the worse prison? I am asking because in recent interview with Julian Assange's mother [1] she states that Sweden is. I was quite doubtful of that statement and looked through the category for prisons in Sweden, but none of the articles reflect her statement. Am I looking in the wrong place, or is wikipedia missing this information? Phearson (talk) 14:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hazard a guess that you'll find the worst prisons in countries that are poor and/or haven't been democracies for very long. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (web site) publishes reports from their visits to detention facilities in European countries. I couldn't find any international rating or summary on their web site. However, there is a report from their visit to Sweden, which (in my biased opinion) doesn't support that there are any serious problems with the quality of the Swedish prisons. Feel free to check the reports for other countries.Sjö (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to depend on what you mean by worst, which is extremely subjective. The article you linked to quotes his mother as saying the Gothenburg prison has been described by Fair Trials International as being the worst prison in Europe, but I can't find any claim to that effect on their website (in fact, a Google search for "gothenburg site:fairtrials.net" finds nothing at all). In fact, apart from people talking about Assange, I can't even find any evidence for there being a prison in Gothenburg... --Tango (talk) 14:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Swedish Prison and Probation Service has a low-security prison in Högsbo, web page in Swedish here. Here's a description of "A day in prison" from the Service.Sjö (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's also a minimum-security prison in Skogome, (web site), that holds only sexual offenders. Sjö (talk) 08:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your link is not correct. It is gotheNburg (in English) or Göteborg (in Swedish). But none produces any result for fairtrials.net. More results can be found by googling gothenburg site:amnesty.org, but they seem to be related to police violence in Gothenburg or human rights activism in the same city. 88.9.215.192 (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the link - thanks! (I had searched correctly, but re-wrote the url to get rid of all the session stuff Google puts in it, and mistyped it.) --Tango (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Sweden's prisons are the toughest in Europe. If you mean the continent Europe, then Belarus, for example, has much tougher prisons. If you mean the EU, then it's still wrong. Easter European countries have worse prisons for sure. Even for softies like Assange, Sweden's prison should have pretty acceptable standards. Also keep in mind that even if he gets deported and convicted, the sentences in Sweden are among the more lenient you can get in the world, and it's not sure he will get prison time at all. 88.9.215.192 (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider Israel part of Europe these Israeli prisoners in 2006 believed Swedish prisons were better then Israeli prisons [2]. Evidentally even Saddam Hussein had heard of the reputation of Swedish prisons www.freerepublic .com/focus/f-news/1366443/posts (blacklisted site). Although in that case perhaps his later fate provide an additional clue, it may have been his hope that wouldn't happen to him if he ended up in Sweden.

On the other hand you may get in trouble for a flatulence protest [3]. More seriously Amnesty International [4] have criticised Sweden for the high number of suicides in prisons and for failing to provide medical attention to people arrested. I don't think AI rates prisons but I suspect if you look at some other European and EU countries such as those 88 suggested, you'll find their complaints about prisons in their countries are more serious. This ref about the Assange case, but from early this year, quotes a Swedish prison chaplain who says Swedish remand prisons are the worst in Europe because prisoners are routinely placed in isolation. But it's not clear to me if she's served in prisons in all European countries. The source also says the COE has criticised Sweden over their isolation practices, Sjö's link should confirm this. It may be a bit of a moot point here though, it seems unlikely he'll be on remand for that long unless he provides significant new evidence during his questioning that needs to be investigated (which seems unlikely) as it seems likely most of the investigation has already happened.

I'm reluctant to say this for BLP reasons and also because it's clearly crystal balling/soapboxing, so if anyone feels I've crossed over the line feel free to delete. I don't think this is a CIA or US set-up as some suggest but I've felt for a while if it were Assange and his supporters have given played right in to their hands. For all this talk about how he's going to be extradited to the US to face the death penalty, it seems to me what's actually likely to happen is he'll be extradited to Sweden. If he's unlucky he'll be charged, although even this isn't entirely clear. At one stage it was suggested the primary thing desired was for a HIV test. By this stage it seems they would have given up on that since there's little point, if the others involved had caught it from him they would know by now from their own tests. So I presume the prosecutors may still charge him even if he agrees or is required to take a test although it will obviously depend on his interview. But even if he is charged, what's likely to happen is he'll get some relatively minor punishment, as 88 suggested possibly not even prison time. And then will be able to go happy on his way back to the UK or Australia or whatever. Meanwhile everyone else will be laughing at the big fuss over how he was going to be sent to the US to be executed. Even more so if the alleged victims make it clear during the case he could have avoided it all if he had been more cooperative when they first raised their concerns (although I'm not sure whether this will actually be revealed or whether the details are likely to be kept secret even if it's successful). A perfect scenario for anyone wanting to discredit Assange.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Lonely Planet forum thread(!) which generally agrees Scandanavia has the nicest prisons. This article from 2000 says Russian prisons are rumoured to be worst, which seems plausible. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all very much for your expertise. I think that it can be safely said that Sweden having the worst prison in all of Europe is absolute bollocks. Mr. Assange needs to take some time to come down to earth a bit. Phearson (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

County level education data

I am trying to find data for educational attainment of males and females of the US at county level. Can anyone point me to such a database? Thank you.--130.160.161.70 (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If anywhere has that, it would be http://www.census.gov . I found the information for the entire U.S. pretty quickly: here, if you hunt through the census website, there is OODLES of tables and data availible there. There may even be a way of contacting the U.S. Census Bureau directly to ask for help in locating your information. I have absolutely no doubt that the information you seek is availible through that website; it is merely a matter of finding it. Good luck! --Jayron32 18:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States vote shifting

What caused the shift in voting from say 1944 when the Southern United States voted largely Democratic and the North Republican? Now it's basically the opposite. CTJF83 21:20, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the changing political stances of those two parties. The "solid south" turned Republican when the Democrats pushed for civil rights legislation. In the post-Civil War era, it was the Repubplicans who pushed for civil rights, and the south clung to the Democrats for several generations thereafter. And don't kid yourself: There are lots of Republicans in the north. The big cities tend to lean Democratic, and the rural Republican. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs is right, but his view is simplistic. Different groups have "migrated" at different times, for different reasons, and to different extents. In 1944, the Democratic Party had strong support from the so-called New Deal coalition which included (perhaps paradoxically) both racial minorities and white Southerners (the Solid South). The white south began migrating to the Republican Party during the 1960s, largely as a response to the increased Democratic support for the Civil Rights Movement. While African Americans had favored Republicans during the reconstruction era, that began to shift with the Compromise of 1877 and the end of Reconstruction. Roosevelt's New Deal policies, designed to help the poor (of which African Americans in the 1930s disproportionaly were), increased minority support for Democrats, further solidified by supporting the Civil Rights movement later in the century. Starting in the 1960s, you had the emergence of the Christian right as a voting bloc largely favoring the Republican Party, with the greatest concentration in the South. I could go on, but there are numerous factors. Both History of the United States Republican Party and History of the Democratic Party (United States) provide a lot of details. Buddy431 (talk) 22:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many blacks stayed with the Republican party down to 1928. Various circumstances -- such as Hoover having promised to make some concessions to blacks when elected president, if black leaders kept quiet about some flagrant abuses connected with the 1927 Mississippi river floods, and then Hoover breaking his promises when in office; and Hoover's failures to deal with the Depression in contrast to the more attractive economic policies of Roosevelt -- led the majority of blacks to become Democratic by 1932 or soon after. For the next 35 years or so, blacks and southern segregationists existed uneasily within the Democratic party. Some scholars have said that it was Roosevelt's 1937 so-called "court-packing" plan which first laid the seeds of segregationist discontent with the Democratic party. Strom Thurmond's "Dixiecrats" temporarily split off from the Democratic party in 1948. However, it was Nixon's carefully-calculated Southern strategy which marked the real end of the post-Civil-War solid Democratic south... AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think 1968 was a seminal year in the re-alignment of states with political party and ideology... prior to that year, both parties had strong liberal and strong conservative wings (the Democratic party had its conservative "Solid South" wing, while the Republican party had its liberal "Rockefeller Republican" wing). Events such as the floor fight at the 1968 Democratic party convention showed that things were beginning to shift. Conservative Democrats were alienated by the party's platform on issues such as the Vietnam War, Civil Rights, and whether to continue Johnson's Great Society social programs. The Republicans had a similar (if less noticeable) shift, with liberal Republicans feeling alienated by the growth of the Religious Right. It took time for a new alignment to completely shake out, but by 1980 the voting patterns had clearly shifted to what we have now (broadly speaking... Liberal Democrats dominating the North East and West Coast, Conservative Republicans dominating the South and Heartland). I am sure that in another 50 years things will have shifted again... but what it might shift to is yet to be seen. Blueboar (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may be interested in the articles Fourth Party System and Fifth Party System which is one means of categorizing U.S. party politics, and the two articles cover the shift in party allegiances being discussed here. --Jayron32 04:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Solid South article, which explains in more detail what I was talking about earlier. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all very much! You gave me a lot of good articles to read, and I appreciate all the responses. Thanks! CTJF83 18:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a quick answer to the question you asked on my talk page, what happened with the Democrats is that many of their prominent segregationists (Strom Thurmond, George Wallace and Jesse Helms, to name three) rejected the Dem's once the party embraced civil rights laws, and they switched to the Republican or to independent parties. One thing to keep in mind is that the Democrats, be they northern or southern, could be characterized as populists, while the Republicans evolved into the party of the wealthy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But why all of a sudden did Dems embrace civil rights? CTJF83 00:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it was all of a sudden, it was a product of American cultural changes that began around the post-WWII time frame and reached a critical mass by the 1960s. The more liberal politicans embraced integration and equality, and the more conservative politicians resisted it. As noted earlier, both parties once had a mix of conservative and liberal, elitist and populist. Over time, the liberals have pretty much all drifted to the Dem and the conservatives to the GOP. I admit to bias against the Republicans, but nearly everything they stand for looks like justification for wealthy white male supremacy. The southern segregationists understood that, and they bolted to the GOP, leaving the Dem populated by only moderates and liberals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Bugs' point, civil rights was, in the 1960s, more a North vs. South issue than Democrats vs. Republicans. See the Civil_rights_act_of_1964#By_party_and_region party vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, for instance. So it's hard to point to a time at which the Democratic Party "embraced civil rights." -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, ok, thanks Bugs, and others. CTJF83 03:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

¶ I wrote the following answer on Baseball Bugs' talk page before doing the obvious thing and searching Reference desk/Humanities to see what the question was referring to. My apologies for all the inevitable duplication from writing before reading (with answers often inferior to what has been offered above; please don't hesitate to complete the bibliographic gaps below directly in my prose). I should also warn readers that some of my answers below are Original research or Original sythesis, the best answers I could think of based on my own knowledge, but not necessarily backed up by formal historical research or Reliable sources; that's one reason I offered some external sources to look up. Let me add on the purely electoral question, that it's enlightening to see the nearly complete flip of states between the two parties from the Election of 1896 to the Election of 1968.

Do you know why the Democrats basically switched from racism to supporting black rights? CTJF83 18:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an incredibly complicated question. More often, the questions asked are (1) why, when and how did the Party of Lincoln become the party of the White South? (a process that began as early as the Disputed Election of 1876 followed by Rutherford B. Hayes' removal of Federal troops protecting black citizens in the Reconstructed South under the so-called Compromise of 1877; was advanced by Southern defections from the Irish Catholic, anti-prohibitionist New Yorker Al Smith in the Election of 1928; took definite form with the 1964 nomination of Barry Goldwater, who'd voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 more for ideological than racial reasons; and later became irreversible under the Southern Strategy of Richard Nixon, Strom Thurmond and John N. Mitchell) and (2) why, when and how did Negro voters move from the Party of Lincoln to the Democrats? (a process that began abortively as early as Woodrow Wilson's 1912 campaign, definitely gained pace with the New Deal, was strengthened by the Civil Rights plank in the 1948 Democratic National Convention, and became permanently entrenched with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Fair Housing Act of 1968 and the Great Society programs of Lyndon B. Johnson).

¶ Some possibly fortuitous circumstances helping the Democrats move from a Negrophobic to an integrationist stance are (a) the personal views of the First Lady: Woodrow Wilson's first wife (Ellen Axson Wilson, 1860-1914) was even more of a segregationist than President Wilson, while Eleanor Roosevelt was a militant advocate for equality, and (b) the fact that FDR was president when A. Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin and the March on Washington Movement put immense nonviolent mass pressure on the government to establish a Fair Employment Practices Commission for wartime workers. Less fortuitous, but harder to document and specify, was a movement away (at a faster rate than the general public) from racist attitudes among many intellectuals, progressives, liberals, leftists and labor activists. As a more concrete, practical matter, the Great Migration of the 20th century moved millions of Southern blacks into Northern industrial cities, where (able to vote as they had not been able in the South) they formed an important constituency that Democratic urban machines could not afford to ignore. Nor, in the long run as opposed to immediate conflicts, could labor unions, who both had moved closer to the Democratic Party and needed to organize new domestic migrants for the same reasons that they had to organize foreign immigrants: to reduce non-union competition in the labor market and possible sources of strikebreakers.

¶ There's ton more to be said (and learned), but I'll give some disorganized bibliographic references as best I can remember them and their authors:

Farewell to the Bloody Shirt (how the 19th century Republicans moved away from civil rights);
Reunion and Reaction by C. Vann Woodward, about the "corrupt bargain" or Compromise of 1877;
The Democratic South by Dewey Grantham, a short book about the evolution of Southern politics;
The Strange Career of Jim Crow by C. Vann Woodward;
Farewell to the Party of Lincoln, about black movement from the GOP to the Democrats;
The Emerging Republican Majority by Kevin Philips (1969), often called the bible of the Southern Strategy

To see how the Democratic and Republican platforms evolved over the years, see The American Presidency project of the University of California, Santa Barbara at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/index.php The platforms are searchable, so you can enter a search term like "Negro", "civil rights" or "lynching" to see how different platforms treated a subject in different years. Particularly interesting are the Democratic and Republican platforms of 1948, which were both strongly pro-civil-rights, and which can be compared with the even more fiercely pro-civil-rights plank of the Progressive Party and the staunch segregationism of the States' Rights Democratic Party, who walked out of the 1948 Democratic convention to run Strom Thurmond, then Democratic governor of South Carolina, for President.—— Shakescene (talk) 12:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

buying material

I have recently become interested in this idea of making things, knitting, sewing, that sort of thing...

Now suppose I decide I want a particular size of a particular colour of a particular material, I have looked around the shops here and could not find any of the sort of shop that sells things for hobbies and such like, so I am left wondering, would there be somewhere online I could go to and place this order, and have the sheet of material delivered here?

148.197.80.214 (talk) 22:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To help you, we would need to know what material you are wanting to buy. Leather, for example, would come from a very different source than, say, sheet metal or mylar or silk or paper. Bielle (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, makes sense. Well then, let's start with the first and probably most difficult, where could I get a pale yellow, rectangular piece of plastic? 148.197.80.214 (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hard plastic or soft ? Transparent, translucent, or opaque ? What size ? Perhaps a home improvement store might be the best place to start. StuRat (talk) 23:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opaque certainly, and I guess soft, or at least slightly flexible. Or perhaps I would be better off researching the exact name of what I want and just searching for that somewhere? 148.197.80.214 (talk) 23:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One thing that turned up in my (fruitless) search was this forum thread: [5] - since the denizens there seem quite knowledgeable, you might try joining that forum and asking there. I also found that a web search for "online craft materials" turns up plenty of online suppliers who will deliver things like wool and needles - but none of them seem to provide plastic sheeting (except acetate) - craft materials are sort of regimented into established hobby areas, there's not much generic all-purpose raw material available. You can probably get it on ebay, mind you. Craft materials from craft suppliers are extortionately expensive, if you care about price, and delivery of small items can add silly amounts to the cost. Finding waste material locally might be more sensible, although specifically finding a pale yellow piece sounds like a tall order. Card Zero (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, if it's going to be opaque anyway, you could always find a piece of plastic of any color and transparency, then paint it. StuRat (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have googled "craft supplies online" and come up with lots of different generic suppliers. Maybe you could do the same? --TammyMoet (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred S. Willis

When and where was Alfred S. Willis, the second Anglican Bishop of the Cathedral Church of Saint Andrew, Honolulu, born and when and where did he die? Also what does the S stand for?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No luck with the S, but this has the rest of the details. He was born 3 February 1836 in Greatford, Lincolnshire and died 14 November 1920 at Milford-on-Sea. Mikenorton (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance that you're combining his name with Albert S. Willis who was in Honolulu at about the same time? Mikenorton (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There was no S.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His entry in the Probate Register simply has him as "Alfred Willis", and confirms his death as 14 November 1920 in Milford-on-Sea. Shimgray | talk | 23:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]