Humanities desk
< June 20	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 22 >

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.

June 21

Kilauea like volcanoes in the Pacific

Are there any other volcanoes in the Pacific Ocean (the islands that is not the continental coastlines) like Kīlauea? I asked about Polynesian volcanoes before in Tahiti and New Zealand but I've only got list of volcanoes listed as either active or extinct. When it comes to volcanoes that tells me very little because I don't know if they erupt slowly spewing out low viscosity magma like Kīlauea or if they erupt abruptly and with ash clouds like Mount St. Helen; shield volcanoes, which are most of the volcanoes that islands developed from, erupt in both ways. Are there any visual image of erupting volcanoes in the Pacific islands other than Hawaii?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 08:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii is over a special "hot-spot" in the ocean crust, and not on the "ring of fire", while Mount St. Helen and volcanos in New Zealand would be on the ring of fire. AnonMoos (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What about the Society Islands, the Marquesas and the other islands also formed by hotspots.See Hotspot (geology)#Pacific Plate.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re visuals: It's not hard to find images by searching google images or flickr:

Tonga: Tongatapu
Fiji: West Mata
Vanuatu: Yasur, Yasur 2, Tanna
Papua New Guinea: Rabaul
Solomon Islands: Tinakula, Tinakula 2, Tinakula 3, Tungurahua, Kavachi, Kavachi 2

...but it's far easier with the name of the volcano than the name of a country or region. So can you share your list of volcanoes that you're looking for if these images are not informative enough? 184.147.118.213 (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The distinctive thing about Kilauea and the other main Hawaiian volcanoes is that they are shield volcanoes. The only other active Pacific shield volcanoes I know of are in the Galapagos, where there are several -- our List of shield volcanoes article also names Niuafo'ou in Tonga though. Looie496 (talk) 17:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wayne

Peter Wayne (no article, unfortunately) is a fascinating figure – a renowned architectural historian and antiques expert who can't, sadly, keep out of prison. He used to write a monthly column for Prospect magazine, although he doesn't seem to have written for them since 2004, see [1]. The most recent information I can find about him online is from 2009 [2], in which he says he is about to be released from a stretch in HMP Wandsworth. My question is, what has happened to him? Is he now back in prison again, still writing, or what? --Viennese Waltz 09:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This says he was released from Wandsworth in June 2012; given how many sentences he's served I'm not sure I'm reading the timeline of that article clearly, but it seems that particular incarceration was for a "32-month sentence for drug-fuelled dishonesty". -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 10:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Music question

Sorry, couldn't think of a more descriptive title. Examples for this will mainly come from popular music, but they would also include classical music, and the question is really about the underlying mechanics of music, so please don't move to Entertainment.

In all my time listening to music, and reading about it and so on, I've never heard a songwriter or composer admit they couldn't quite work out the tune they had in their heads. Anecdotally, you hear it happens quite a bit, but I've only heard of it with people who hear a tune in their heads, and don't know how to write it at all. You would expect there would be successful songwriters/ composers who experience a lesser version of the same thing. Have any of them reported this? IBE (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many composers struggle with their tunes. The best example I know is of Beethoven's struggle with the opening movement of his 5th Symphony (the "da-da-da-DAH" piece). I still have a cassette tape recorded from the radio many years ago, of Leonard Bernstein explaining Beethoven's various attempts along the way, with the help of the New York Philharmonic. He had access to Beethoven's notebooks, and it has been possible to reconstruct the pathway of his thinking before he finally settled on the result we all know. It is utterly fascinating to hear where Beethoven's mind went in his search for the perfect sequence of notes, the perfect orchestration of every bar, and the perfect ending. Some of his discarded thoughts are very revealing indeed.

And after writing that, I discovered this on youtube. It’s a somewhat shortened version of the above, but using a piano rather than the orchestra. Well worth a listen. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it went something more like this. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the way. Jolly good show. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

You guys are the best ;-) IBE (talk) 19:49, 23 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]

It reminds me of a couple of things. One is the saying attributed to Edison, about an invention being "10 percent inspiration and 90 percent perspiration". Another is something I recall Roger Miller saying on a talk show way back when. He said his songs all started with "bits and pieces", written on paper. He was asked what he did with the bits and pieces that never evolved into songs: "I smoke 'em." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beethoven is kind of famous for struggling over his works, even though so much of his music sounds as if it couldn't be any other way (Bernstein said something to the effect that in Beethoven's music each note has a kind of "inevitability"). Yet, in addition to the 5th symphony, he spent many years working out the themes of his 9th symphony (see [3]). There are many other examples in his case. We are lucky to have a good number of his sketchbooks, giving us something of a view into the way he fleshed out ideas. Pfly (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bernstein talks about the inevitability of the notes in Beethoven's music in my link above. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, sorry, I didn't check your links first. It's definitely one of the things I remember most about what Bernstein had to say about Beethoven. I seem to recall something similar about sketches for the Große Fuge, but a quick google didn't turn up what I had hoped. Pfly (talk) 07:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Almost any skilled composer hearing a tune played on a piano would be able to write it down on paper. So a composer who "heard something in his head" but couldn't write it down would probably be judged to not be hearing it very clearly. Looie496 (talk) 15:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was kind of thinking this myself, in the classical world, but firstly, there might be a time at the start of their careers when this skill is developing, and their "opus 1" gets lost in a sea of scribbled notes that weren't quite right. Then there would be popular songwriters whose craft has not been refined perfectly, the required technical skill being somewhat easier. So I'm looking for any examples, classical or popular, where this has happened. Certainly interested also in the Beethoven discussion, but that is of a different order: he knew what he heard in his head, but took a while to create it. My primary interest is in whether there are people who can create but struggle to write it down. IBE (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to realize that "hearing in your head" is a kind of mental image. The relationship between mental images and perception is not nearly as straightforward as our intuition suggests. Our article about this is not very good, but it might give you a starting point for further reading if you want to pursue this. Looie496 (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'm forming some kind of a mental image of my future self reading this book linked from the article - thanks. IBE (talk) 19:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've recommended this book more than once, and do so again. (Note to self: Really must get my copy back from ex-b/f when I see him next month). -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of on-topic, if vague: I recall reading a science fiction story from the 1940s or '50s, possibly by Henry Kuttner, about someone who travelled back in time to that era in the US. In order to make a living he hit on the idea of "writing" and selling successful pop songs from his own era. On the strength of humming a few of "his" songs, he was employed by a Tin Pan Alley music publisher, but having only rudimentary musical knowledge found himself unable to easily play "his" tunes on a piano, let alone write the score; however a secretary in the building realised his problem and immediately teamed him up with a musically adept partner, reassuring him that it was not uncommon for good songwriters to be unable to either play well or write music at all (one or two real songwriters of the era were named as examples). While this was a fictional story, my strong impression is that this aspect of it was accurate, not least because if it were not, the magazine that published the story would have been inundated with critical letters and the story would have been revised before book publication. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of Irving Berlin in some ways. Berlin taught himself the piano, and could only ever play in one key. He also never learned harmony, but when he composed a new song - and he made a point of writing a new song every day - he knew exactly in his mind how it should sound when harmonised but was unable to write down any more than the melody himself, so he used a professional to harmonise his tunes in accordance with the ideas he had in his head. See the sectron titled "Songwriting methods". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I bigged 212's contribution, since it is perfectly on-topic. Small writing is hard for some people to read, also. Incomplete/uncertain info is quite fine; I only expect people to defer to people who know things in detail). I do agree with 212 that if something like that ends up in fiction, with real people mentioned, there is a fair chance it's correct, and it did the trick prompting Jack's addition. If even someone with less formal training like Berlin can still work out the melody, if not the harmony, it suggests the phenomenon is rather rare. I suspected as much, but I'm surprised there don't seem to be any concrete examples of someone having to hum a melody line, and even having a bit of trouble with that. IBE (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel boss

What is feel boss? Once place i read its mean nothing, another place i read its a nasty sexual thing like 2 girls 1 cup and blue waffle just 10x worse. But what do it real means? --80.161.143.239 (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Boss" is slang for "Awesome" or "cool" or "great", among those from a certain age and location within the U.S. See Many of the definitions here at Urban Dictionary. To "feel boss" may mean to "feel awesome" or "feel great". There are several different facebook groups that use the phrase "feeling boss" in their title with this exact usage. --Jayron32 20:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing new under the sun, is there? I remember "boss" being used that way back in c. the early 60s. Then it was "gas". Then "cool" (that's still around). Later came "bad" and "sick" and even "fully sick". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Tough" is on that list too, another early-60s thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Jumpin' Jack Flash is a gas, gas, gas." I wonder if any songs preserved the term "boss"? I can think of one, on a "Carpenters" album, fairly obscure. But the Stones have kept "it's a gas" alive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Boss Drum gets us to 1992... Tevildo (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Bad", "sick" and "fully sick" have been taken a little further by the Australian Aboriginal community with the term "deadly" roughly meaning "excellent". The Deadlys highlight this usage. HiLo48 (talk) 04:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the age I was thinking of. In my mind, it is particularly associated with the slang of the 1960s-1970s, i.e. Dazed and Confused and That 70's Show era slang. --Jayron32 20:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Current activity on Pinterest shows a meme: "[gerund] like a boss" - i.e. "acing it" or achieving the top performance level. I don't know the origin of this usage but it's consistent with the the positive sense noted above and perhaps also the literal meaning of "boss" in the workplace: the person in charge, who sets the standard, etc. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So its not true that is means something sexually in Australia as i have read? I dont know what kind of slang they use. --80.161.143.239 (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We're a huge melting pot of every other culture on Earth, really. Quite cosmopolitan, if you know where to look (due to our extreme geographical heterogeneity, it can be easy to miss). Despite that, in my experience Australians generally have tin ears for other languages and tin brains about even their own history, let alone those of other nations. But we (apart from me) are very quick adopters of new media technology, and are full bottle with all the characters from every "reality" show ever conceived by the mind of man. We are at the cutting edge of really important stuff like all the latest internet/pop culture speak, to which we add our home-grown colloquialisms. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King vs Queen

I'm not sure about other monarchies, but in Britain the title of King seems to trump that of Queen; why? Surely they're the same office with the same powers and prerogatives. Philip was kept as a prince because to make him a king would undermine Her Majesty's authority; yet females are entitled to be queen consort's. Now that they're seeking to address the issue of gender inequality in the monarchy will this change, or will a king, historically, always be more powerful than a queen? --Andrew 20:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that a king is more powerful than a queen. There is one variety of king, but two varieties of queen. A queen can be either a queen regnant or a queen consort. A queen regnant is equivalent in every important way to a king. Queen Elizabeth II is a queen regnant, and she is just as much the monarch as her father King George VI was. George's wife was Queen Elizabeth, a queen consort. She probably had significant unofficial influence, but had no legal powers. She was not even a peeress and could not sit in the House of Lords. The British tradition is for wives of knights, baronets, peers, princes and kings to have a courtesy title; there is no equivalent tradition for husbands of dames, baronetesses, peeresses, princesses or queens. That's all this is about. It may all change when men can marry men and women can marry women in exactly the same legal way as men can marry women now. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't so simple as "A king is always more powerful than a queen." Sometimes yes, sometimes no, and sometimes it is more complex than that. The article you have linked gives sufficient answers for most situations, but we cannot answer "will this change", as that's just idle speculation, and that's not something we do here. We can point you to examples of queens which were particularly powerful, for example Catherine de' Medici, Queen Mother of three French Kings, was known for weilding considerable political power, despite her not being a Queen Regnant. It was often said of Elizabeth I of England that she had the "Heart and stomach of a King," refering to the considerable political power she wielded. King consort does contain some historical examples of where a non-Ruling husband of a ruling Queen was given the title, either formally or informally. From English history, Philip II of Spain was officially King of England and Ireland jure uxoris from his wife Mary I of England, and all royal proclamations and acts of Parliament included his name alongside hers as such, but AFAIK, he exerted little actual political power in England, whereas she did. Likewise, my impression was that the marriage of the Catholic Monarchs in Spain was seen as something of a co-equal political relationship, in particular Isabella was known for her shrewd Marriage alliances she is given credit for negotiating, which ensured that her grandchildren would sit on several major thrones around Europe. --Jayron32 20:38, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But with regard to gender inequality in the monarchy, if a monarch has an elder daughter and a younger son, the daughter is bypassed (at least in the UK). Is that the case everywhere, and has that inequality ever been addressed or discussed officially in the UK? → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 20:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Michael_J -- for a long time the succession to the English/British throne was more female-friendly than many continental European monarchies (the principle that the throne could pass through a woman was established in the middle ages with Matilda, and the principle that the throne could pass to a woman was established in 1553 with Mary I). It's only in recent decades that gender-blind primogeniture has started to become the norm... AnonMoos (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current British government has enacted legislation which will mean the Duchess of Cambridge's baby, be it a boy or a girl, will become the monarch one day, irrespective of its gender. See Succession to the Crown Act 2013. --Andrew 21:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And see Perth Agreement for the wider Commonwealth implications. (Technically, the UK Act does not say the baby will become the monarch. It says the baby will be in the line of succession to succeed its (?) father, Prince William. If the baby falls under a bus, it won't become monarch. And it might be aged 60 by the time it succeeds, so natural causes might have come into play.)-- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Falls under a bus or becomes a Catholic. Either's just as bad. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding older sisters being bypassed, many European monarchies have addressed the issue already, Primogeniture#Absolute cognatic primogeniture notes countries whose throne passes to oldest child regardless of gender. At this point, after the Commonwealth Realm's recent work to enact similar laws, most of now work that way. --Jayron32 21:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's only relatively recently that Sweden changed the rules. Crown Princess Viktoria was displaced from her position when her younger brother Carl Philip was born in May 1979, and restored to first in line of succession the following January when legal changes that were already in the pipeline came into effect. --Arwel Parry (talk) 12:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might seem obvious, irrelevant to modern times or sexist (or all three), but a King would typically be more physically powerful than a Queen, and better trained for combat. In the days before royals let their talking do the talking, I doubt Elizabeth II would have lasted 60 years. Imgine her on a horse, period, let alone riding one into battle. Do you hear Yakety Sax? Probably why succession was a sexist thing in the first place. InedibleHulk (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In point of fact, Her Majesty is well known to be a competent horsewoman for both ceremonial and pleasure purposes (as two of the pictures in the linked article illustrate). If by any chance you mistyped and intended Elizabeth I, she too is known to have ridden, and indeed was mounted (on a grey gelding) when she delivered the speech in which she herself (contra Jayron above) claimed to have "the heart and stomach of a king". {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. She doesn't look quite as funny on a horse as I'd imagined (at least not at that age, and without the war context). The first Elizabeth seemed to have the bigger balls (respectfully), but even she, for all her horsemanship and poise, began that "heart and stomach of a King" sentence with "I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman". And her heart and stomach generally didn't do much for her far-off battles (of course, her male generals and soldiers deserve blame, too). InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the only reason she stopped riding in the Trooping of the Colour was because someone fired a replica gun at her in the 1980s, frightening her horse badly. Even then, she stayed on and calmed the horse down even though she was riding side-saddle. It looks pretty badass if you watch the footage, but also demonstrates why nobody wanted to risk her like that again. See this news article reporting it: [4]. 86.162.68.199 (talk) 06:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Jewish population without Holocaust

Have there been any reliable estimates of what the modern Jewish population would be if the Holocaust hadn't happened? I looked over the Jews article, and figuring 13.7 million Jews today against a peak of 15 million pre-Holocaust and six million killed, it seems of conterfactual historical interest to speculate what modern Jewish demographics would look like now if history had gone another way. --BDD (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a first approximation, ignoring natural increase during the war, and gentiles who married Jews and converted, if the stated prewar 15 million (assuming 1939) were decreased to 9 million due to 6 million murdered by 1945, and the 9 million from 1945 increased to 13.7 million by 2013, that is an increase of 52.2% in 68 years, or about 0.62% per year compounded increase. Had the stated prewar population increased at this rate, there would be 74 years increase at 0.62% from a base of 15 million, or about 23.7 million in 2013. Uncertainty factors might be that traumatized holocaust survivors might be less prone to procreate, or that the survivors might feel a need to have lots of children, or that malnutrition and stress might decrease fertility.Also "if the holocaust had not happened," then maybe WW2 never happened, and Jews in Russia and Poland etc., stayed there rather than migrating to Europe, the US and Israel, and Jews in the US stayed there rather than migrating to Israel. In different settings, with different government subsidies, and different qualitiesof medical care, live birth rates and infant mortality will vary substantially. (Please check my figures, since I don't remember offhand how to use logarithms for this, and just iteratively used exponential growth factors). Edison (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your meta-discussions (if you really need them) on talk.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm sorry to be doing this, Edison, as your numbers may well be spot on. But as a matter of extremely clear policy we DO NOT DO personal speculation here. Your post contained no references. If you can find a reference saying what you said, or something similar, please provide it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Number stated by the OP, less a decrement stated by the OP, with a postwar exponential growth rate stated by the OP, applied to the prewar period figure, with appropriate error factors and uncertainties stated and voila, impermissible personal opinion in the view of Oz. If I can find my high school algebra book in the attic, I will cite it as a source for how exponential growth works. Edison (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(a) It's not my view, it's what our agreed policy says. If you think you should be able to provide such answers, please propose a change to our policy. (b) On what basis were your "appropriate error factors and uncertainties" chosen? Merely stating your assumptions does not magically change them from OR to a reputable source. To the contrary, it makes it plain that they are indeed OR. What distinguishes this reference desk from your drinking mates is that we don't just prattle on with our own personal theories, beliefs, assumptions and arguments. We use references. That's why it's called a reference desk. I'm not disputing the accuracy of your figures per se; even if I could personally verify them, which I can't, that is SO not the point. I hope you understand where I'm coming from. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What policy? Declaring that Refdesk answers are required to provide references is remarkable, as articles are not, contrary to frequent misstatements. Bludgeoning with an unstated "policy" can be effective. But should one do it? If there is anything one should be required to provide careful references for, it is polemical use of a "policy". IMHO, this is very much an individual view, rather than a policy, let alone an extremely clear (or achievable) one. High school algebra isn't ordinarily deemed "speculation", here or in the real world. If it and similar things are impermissible "speculation", there is not a single article in Wikipedia that does not violate "policy", let alone their talk pages, to which the Refdesk bears more similarity. While this may be a good thing to achieve understanding of, it does highlight the importance of our most important, clearest and most self-consistent policy: WP:IAR. The only other one worth a damn is WP:AGF.John Z (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first half is OK, but as Jack says we do not engage here in counterfactual history. Another factor is defining what you mean by the Jewish population. Jews don't always marry Jews, and many people with Jewish or part Jewish ancestry don't identify as Jewish (true today of all religions). This applies equally(?) to the real world and the fantasy one. Sussexonian (talk) 07:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Sergio DellaPergola made some educated speculation and got 32 million, see for example this Haaretz article. (I couldn't get a hold of the actual publication by DellaPergola yet). ---Sluzzelin talk 00:34, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How far from Chinese territory, is the closest US military base to Chinese territory?

There is a small part of Afghanistan that touches China, so I suppose we can't be too far.

But exactly what is the closest US base to China or any Chinese-held territory, and how far is it? --70.179.161.230 (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at a map, there are four options which are all broadly the same distance (a few hundred miles) - Bagram Airbase in Kabul, the (fairly unwarlike) Transit Center at Manas, various bases in Okinawa, or bases in western South Korea (perhaps Osan Air Base)? I haven't measured the distance of any of these to the border, but I'd be very surprised if a) it wasn't one of them and b) the others weren't reasonably close. Andrew Gray (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But what about FOBs? Not major bases, but any-sized base with a military presence? --70.179.161.230 (talk) 02:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not concerned with the size of the force, there's at least one military attache in the US embassy in Beijing, another in the Hong Kong Consulate General. Oh, and the Marine Corps guards are armed military personnel. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For a while (until 1979), United States Taiwan Defense Command was very close to, or actually on, Chinese territory, depending on your definition of "China". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Adams Whipple

Was John Adams Whipple ever in Hawaii in the 19th century or any other photograph from Boston with the name of Whipple? This engraving made from a photograph of Lunalilo indicates that the original was a photographer named Whipple from Boston. Lunalilo never set foot on the continental US let alone visit Boston. File:Lunalilo, photograph by H. L. Chase (PP-98-15-009).jpg indicate H. L. Chase was the photographer not Whipple. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I looked in a Whipple genealogy and found an eight page mini-biography of John Adams Whipple, with no indication that he travelled outside of Massachusetts. Most of his photography was in the Boston area, and his portraits of celebrities of the time (e.g. Jenny Lind) were made at his Massachusetts studio. It's explicitly stated that there's no indication that he travelled to combat zones for his Civil War photography. So he probably didn't travel extensively, though I can't rule out a trip to Hawaii on the basis of a short biography. (Whipple, Blaine (2007), 15 Generations of Whipples, vol. 2, Baltimore, Maryland: Gateway Press, pp. G620–G627) - Nunh-huh 01:43, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]