Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 July 7

Humanities desk
< July 6	<< Jun | July | Aug >>	July 8 >

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.

July 7

Prime Ministerial Trade Envoys

What do Prime Ministerial Trade Envoys actually do, and do they get paid for it? DuncanHill (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

They are called Trade commissioners in Canada and Australia. They are civil servants (and therefore paid a government salary) who often have diplomatic status and work out of an Embassy or a Chamber of commerce in a foreign country. Their job is to promote their country's businesses abroad. They do this by identifying trade opportunities and providing market intelligence, helping to arrange official meetings, intervening on the company's behalf if necessary, and also attracting foreign investors. Their services are normally offered free of charge to companies that qualify, to ensure there is no favouritism or conflict of interest. See for example this web page from the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service [1]. Xuxl (talk) 10:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

"The Prime Minister’s Trade Envoys are a network of appointed parliamentarians, drawn from the House of Commons/House of Lords and across the political spectrum. The role is unpaid and voluntary." [2]. --Phil Holmes (talk) 11:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah while their roles may be similar to the trade commissioners in those countries, it doesn't seem likely they will function exactly the same. I mean beyond the fact each country probably does things slightly different, the fact PM Trade Envoys are parliamentarians likely limits the amount of time they can spend on the role, especially the amount of time they can spend in whatever countries they are the trade envoy to. I mean maybe the life peers can survive with spending most of their time in some other country, but I can't imagine the people of Broxtowe (UK Parliament constituency), will generally be happy if they can never see their MP nor does he ever represent them in parliament because he's spending all his time in the Caribbean. And it is or at least was a marginal seat. Nil Einne (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Finding a date of death

I know that a man named Rasmus Olsen (wikidata:Q112960981) was buried in Waupaca, Wisconsin on February 5, 1894. Are there any publicly available sources that can give his date of death? He was born February 16, 1814 in Denmark and emigrated to the United States in 1879. Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Reported on page 2 of Ringsted Folketidende, 26 February 1894. da:wp says he died in February 1894 - the newspaper may give the exact one of the five possible dates. 31.55.134.161 (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer. I wrote the article about Rasmus Olsen in Danish Wikipedia. Ringsted Folketidende only states the date of the burial. February 1894 comes from a book of biographies of all Danish MPs published in 1950. I am not sure that Olsen necessarily died in February. The biographer may have assumed this because the death was reported in several Danish newspapers in February. --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 15:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

French men born in 1899 who died in World War I?

What percentage of French men born in 1899 died in World War I? And what about for other, nearby birth years such as 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898, and 1900? (I would presume that the figure for 1901 is 0% since 1901-born French men only turned 18 in 1919, after the war was already over, correct?) 68.4.99.100 (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

According to this article, 23-24% of the 1894-born French male cohort got killed in World War I: https://www.cairn-int.info/article-E_POPSOC_510_0001--lost-generations-the-demographic.htm But the percentage for this for the 1900-born French male cohort is astronomically less. And even then, I don't know how many of the 1900-born French male deaths are due to World War I rather than due to the Spanish flu. And what about for 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898, and 1899? 68.4.99.100 (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Given the few months delay before being sent to the front after enrolment, the last cohort concerned ( in WWI, not considering the spanish flu pandemic) should be that of 1897. The previous french law passed before WWI on the matter: Loi des Trois ans (fr) lowered the mandatory of age from 21 to 20, Assemblèe Nationale(f). This not making the subject more appealing :Combattants(f)--Askedonty (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

At any rate, those who should have been called in October 1919, born in 1899 were called in April 1918. The 1911 drill (men born in 1891) stayed enrolled 6 years and ten months long, and may have endured percentages of losses approaching that of the 1894 cohort: 14-18(f). That last link mentions a delay of approximatively three months between call and effective incorporation. There to be added three to eight months drill and classes, although was this sometimes to be done directly near or effectively at the theater. --Askedonty (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Taking the numbers out of the documents here and here I'm arriving at approximately 2%. This means that the date in April refers to their incorporation.

Indeed the commission for the army in the Senat is giving a 1917, 29 december completed report regarding the related registering and in 1918, the march 29 report by the same M. Strauss "sur le PJL relatif à l’incorporation de la classe 1919"; https://www.senat.fr/histoire/1914_1918/commission_de_larmee/commission/69_s_82.html, also s_84. --Askedonty (talk) 20:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Can you please elaborate as to which numbers you are talking about here? I want to see the calculation myself. 68.4.99.100 (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Of course. They were 229,000 recruits representing about 75% of the initial 1899 selection. We have a repartition table (the pdf above) assessing a WWI 0.4 percentage of killed to the 1899 and later (a few enlisted youngsters?) cohorts. I took the upper estimation of the total of killed, 1.4 million. The resulting estimate is just below 2% . --Askedonty (talk) 09:29, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Loosely estimated as well, as a value related to an evaluated six months of exposure it would represent a 16% rate extended over 4 years, which is coherent with the overall data. Given that the recruitment rendement was 75% compared to more than 90% the previous years, those 2% represent a not negligible pressure exerted on this ultimate sample. --Askedonty (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

5,600 (as in, 1.4 million * 0.4%) is indeed slightly over 2% of 229,000. It's almost 2.5%, but a few of these deaths could have potentially been 1900-born males rather than 1899-born males. So, slightly over 2% is correct, it seems. Thank you. 68.4.99.100 (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm currently in stay in France coincidently and I've heard they are enquiring about the death of a young kid in summer camp last year by suffocation while eating sausage. They've been relaunching the enquiry because the brand of the product was not initialy mentioned [3]. This telling us how much precision is universally recognized for a precious quality. --Askedonty (talk) 12:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The number of Minsk Jews who survived the Holocaust?

According to this book, 7,000 out of 72,000 Minsk Jews survived the Holocaust:

https://books.google.com/books?id=MJrnDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT82&dq=yitzhak+arad+minsk+7,000+jews+72,000&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=1&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwisqb75xuf4AhVhJkQIHbhaAx0Q6AF6BAgFEAI

However, the source cited for this (mentioned in the back of this book) does not appear to provide this information. Thus, what exactly is the source for this information? 68.4.99.100 (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

The surest way to find out (and I cannot think of any other easy way) would be to write (or otherwise reach out) to the book's copyright holder organization Yad Vashem (the author Yitzhak Arad is, sadly, dead) and/or the book's publisher the University of Nebraska Press and ask. Since this is evidently a scholarly work, it seems likely that either one would be happy to answer. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}

Do you have their e-mails? 68.4.99.100 (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Both of the relevant articles I linked above have (at the bottom of their infoboxes) links to the organisations' official websites, where emails, postal addresses etc. will doubtless be available. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.205.225.65 (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. 68.4.99.100 (talk) 22:04, 8 July 2022 (UTC)