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

May 7

The definition as "race"

Is race scientific at all, or race is social construction is always arbitrary, which human categorize and construct the definitions manually. Because when people measure interracial pattern they always include Hispanic as being a race, I try to find ways to remove Hispanic from racial categories. Is definition of race any right or wrong, or there are many ways to classify the racial groups, which many ways are perfectly valid.--69.233.254.115 (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

See Race (human classification) for some information. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

My personal response is usually along the lines of "I'm part of the human race". Any narrower classification will always be arguable, and will inevitably depend on local perspective. I'm in Australia. Hispanic is hardly ever mentioned as a race here. In fact, Australians seem far less concerned with race than perhaps Americans are. There are some issues here concerning Aboriginal people, but even when discussing them the word race is hardly ever used. HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I class myself in that way, too. I always have to laugh when on any government forms here in the UK, it always asks 'White (British)', 'White (Irish)', and 'White (Other)', as if Irish are somehow different (and my family is a mix of Irish, Scots, Welsh, and Norwegians, with maybe a bit of English somewhere, so I don't think of it as ethnicity or race, but rather what passport I have). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 02:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"Race" is a combination of physical characteristics and the social reaction to those characteristics. EO speaks to the origin and the inherent vagueness of the term.[1] The way I was taught in school, Hispanics are considered to be part of the Caucasian race. But that's just a high-level grouping. Taking it down several levels of detail complicates matters. That's how you end up with the crazy notion of the Irish being a "race". Yet the vagueness of the term, as mentioned in EO, make it possible to consider any distinctive ethnic group as a "race". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm more than willing to be proved wrong, but I don't think any serious scholar thinks that races are natural kinds. This is not to say that all conceptions of race are unscientific, however. See Yuddell, Michael, "A Short History of the Race Concept" in Krimsky and Sloan (eds.), Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture (Columbia University Press, 2011), pp. 13—30. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 03:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

EO's usage as "people of common descent" allows for broad interpretation. "Human race", the traditional races based on skin color, and further classifications that are more and more localized and specialized. The value of studying those racial traits depends on what you're trying to prove. As an example, it used to be said that sickle cell anemia was predominantly seen among Africans and those of African descent. But it turns out that sickle cell is not connected with race as such, but rather with geography - it's a product of natural selection, as those with that trait have an advantage in resisting malaria - hence it's seen in several tropical areas around the world, not just Africa, and hence not just the "African" or "black" race. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• Almost all words have multiple senses, as does race: competition, family, geographical variation. Each sense is a separate concept and you must define each concept as you would use it in context. There is a sense of race in which the Ukraine is closer to the Frenchman than to the Chinaman. That sense has less reality to it than geography, but not no reality too it. μηδείς (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The lack of a discrete question [or question mark] in the OP is typical of these sorts of question. "Hispanic" as a racial category is one of the more.... fluid ones... the U.S. Census and its idiosyncratic definitions of the term are a good example of that. Race is obviously a social construct, but it also has some discrete hereditary pieces to it. There's all sorts of cultural discrimination all over the world... "racially" based ones are only the half of it. And to get beyond that, of course, "race" often has less to do with DNA and more to do with cultural ties.

That said, there are still definite differences that roughly correlate to races (see our Race and genetics) and have nothing to do with modern factors... certain genetic diseases have overwhelming genetic basis that are concentrated in certain races: sickle cell, c.f. Malaria, Tay Sachs disease. [2] Is a good peer reviewed article discussing some of these diseases. Shadowjams (talk) 07:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the awkward discriminatory areas is that involving religion. I frequently see people who are anti-Muslim being described as racist which, of course, makes little sense. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess... this is kinda wildly off topic... but I think the reason for that is because in English speaking culture "racism" has become code for "shit you can't say"... and people who haven't thought about the issue label things like that in those terms for precisely that reason... it's shorthand...it's the same way blasphemy was for much of the preceding time. Shadowjams (talk) 08:02, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Also because there's a stereotype that "Muslim" implies "from some God-forsaken place whose name I can barely pronounce, and jibbering some lingo I can't understand; in short, definitely not one of us". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 09:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Allied war crimes during World War II

Soviet Union will top the list of war criminals, which country will go to the bottom? --Yoglti (talk) 02:39, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to be clear whether you're basing the ranking on total people killed, raped or otherwise brutalised by each country; or the number of individual war criminals in each country; or whatever else. On what do you base the USSR being at the top? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

JackofOz makes a great observation, there are some very thick studies on this matter however the different opinions on what is a war crime is almost as varied as the contemporary debate on what is torture (is being held at Gitmo where they are spending close to $900,000 a year on each prisoner torture, or is waterboarding or is what Israel is doing with Palestinian captors torture). It is a great question for a doctoral thesis or NGO white paper, but there is no one page or even one paragraph answer I am afraid due to the very justified different interpretations of all things that could and could not be considered a "war crime". ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Soviets committed the maximum war crimes, mass rape of Poland and Germany, POWs in Soviet captivity had lowest survival rate, large scale massacres, etc etc. This makes them top war criminal. --Yoglti (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

And they committed so numerous war crimes that Wikipedia has a whole article about them. --Yoglti (talk) 04:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That in itself means nothing. We have a whole category on "War crimes committed by country". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, before wiggling the moral index finger, you should consider taking into account circumstances, resources, and people involved. The Soviets lost more military personal than the US ever enlisted, and had even more civilian casualties. It's easy to understand (though not to excuse) how you can get 10 times more atrocities if you have 10 times more troops on the ground, most of which have lost not one, but several close friends and relatives in the war. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Good point Stephan Schulz especially considering the almost 3 year long Siege of Leningrad, where each and every day the lucky ones could dine on either wallpaper paste, sickly rats or freshly dead human corpses, and those were the ones that were lucky. Maybe Russians were a little "out there" in their violence, but do you know anyone alive who is sane after 2 1/2 months of eating wallpaper pastes and sick rodents every other day let alone 2 1/2 years? If you asked one of those Russians in 1944 if they thought they were being a bit harsh to the Nazis, they would have wondered if you were sane. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Then I guess Luxembourg troops commited the least number of war crimes simply because they had the smallest army of all the allies? --Lgriot (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

This thread seems to be an excuse for people to climb up on the soapbox and post their opinions. I suggest it be closed as contrary to the stated purposes of the reference desk. Edison (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

As long as you do it without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The question itself was ok, as were at least the first 2 responses. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems with the construction of War Crimes is that people rarely bother to inspect the theoretical category with any close attention. A chief example of this is the debate over whether Dresden was a war crime. Against most normative evaluations of whether the deliberate aerial bombardment of civilians ought to occur, the actions meet the criteria of a war crime. However, I have read it argued, that as Dresden was a declared Festung, that siege law ought to have applied, which made every civilian a combatant under the laws of war. Allied bombardment planners, however, did not know this. So while attempting to commit a war crime, they in fact did not.

The complexity of interpretation required in relation to individual incidents, and the lack of a comprehensive series of war crimes trials after the Second World War setting a de jure standard, puts us at a disadvantage in making stable interpretations that are likely to receive field wide acceptance amongst the scholars. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It seems weird that whether or not the citizens of Dresden were victims of a war crime depends in part on the exact ways in which both sides' militaries behave like bastards. In that light, the definition of 'war crime' looks like a weird technicality, although I suspect that it's the application of siege law to an situation of aerial bombardment that's the really weird bit. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I unmorally think after all of those hurts and sufferings Germans did to Russians/Ukrainians/Belarusians, any Soviet mistreatments to Germans weren't war crimes as such, but just paybacks. It's even somewhat surprising that the German population from Königsberg to Elbe wasn't exterminated at all. I'd like to see what you would do and feel if, for example, all your family was killed, or your relatives, or your best friends etc. I'm sure you'd "like" any German seen very much. Englishmen and especially Americans hadn't many reasons to wholeheartedly hate and mistreat Germans, as the latter did not do much harm to the former (if none at all). For Americans it was just another war at the opposite edge of the world, not too much differences (even despite of more great losses) from the contemporary wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 20:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

But the russians didn't just take it out on the germans. Vespine (talk) 23:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, seems you've just confused Communists and NKVD with Russians. The former "took it" out on the latter much earlier (since 1917, to be exact) and in much greater scale.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 02:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

If I had have said "soviet" would you have made the same objection? I probably meant soviet, but the above several comments started using "Russian".. Vespine (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Native separatism

As most of you are probably well aware, here in the USA there's quite a lot of Indian separatism, Hawaiian separatism and Puerto Rican separatism -- but we don't hear much about Eskimo separatism. Is this because Eskimo separatism is actually less prevalent, or just less well publicized? And if it's less widespread (as I think is the case), then what are the reasons -- is it because the Eskimos are more assimilated, or because the harsh conditions in Alaska create a feeling of "we're all in this together", or just because there's been less animosity in the past between the white people and the Eskimos, or maybe for some other reasons? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 04:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you may be on to something with the harsh conditions also the fact that anthropologically a lot of these groups organized movements based on real or perceived cultural encroachment, the Eskimos have had a different experience in the tundra than Puerto Ricans, Hawaiians or tribes in the lower 48 with encroachment and total assimilation. A big reason I've seen is the extremely sparse population of Alaska combined with the highest mountains on the continent and formidable, expansive terrain, even though Eskimos have some interference by the state and feds by in large not much has changed for their culture or homelands in the last 200 years, especially when compared to Puerto Rico, the Cherokee or Hawaii. Separatist movements must have a large segment of the population in fear of losing land, resources, culture identity, tradition and the like to have any kind of staying power, Eskimos by in large are not feeling that pressure with the wild expanse that is Alaska. Also worth mentioning is the extremely generous financial payments to the Eskimo in particular and to Alaskans in general by both the Federal government and the oil companies, the oldest trick in politics is the way you pacify a group is send them money, and keep sending it. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:43, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

But see Inuit Ataqatigiit. Rojomoke (talk) 05:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That's in Greenland, not Alaska. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

"Eskimo separatism" constitutes tens-of-thousand of people. The number of indigenous Alaskans that vote for a distinction between "white people" and "Eskimos" is minor. Alaska as a state is more self-governed than the Canadian equivalent. Shadowjams (talk) 09:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

• There is the Alaskan Independence Party, but those are mostly ultra-right-wing white people and not Eskimos. --Jayron32 05:56, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm in the USA, but I'm not sure what is meant by "Indian separatism". A quick google turns up a lot of historical stuff but not so much current-day stuff. Does the term refer to Native American civil rights or something more akin to secession and sovereignty? Because my impression is that there is a lot of native concern about civil rights and "tribal sovereignty", but within the overarching framework of the USA; that is, not secessionist, for the most part. Pfly (talk) 05:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

regular currency sales

what are regular currency sales?Curb Chain (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The basic idea is thus: there are very few currencies which are used for international business. Those are called reserve currencies, and they are basically the U.S. Dollar and the Euro (to a lesser extent the Japanese Yen and the U.K. Pound Sterling are used as well). All other currencies are basically useful only for internal transactions within the country that issues them. In some countries, it is necessary for the government (via the central bank) to make U.S. Dollars and/or Euros available to firms who trade outside the country. Normally, dollars would be coming in to the country if the country was a net exporter (as you'd be exchanging products for dollars), but Egypt seems to be having trouble in this regard; perhaps this is a Gresham's law type problem (bad money is driving our good). If a company has no actual Dollars on hand, it makes buying things very hard. It could trade for dollars on the open market, say via Forex, but this is a pretty expensive way to do it, and way too volatile. Instead, the government exchanges Egyptian pounds for dollars (i.e. it sells the dollars itself in exchange for Egyptian pounds) so its businesses have the hard currency necessary to do international business. This system seems to be a form of Quantitative easing, in the sense that the central bank is "buying" Egyptian currency back from the market with dollars. In normal "quantitative easing", the central bank buys government bonds and not actual currency, but the effect here is the same: the government (via the central bank) is trying to expand the money supply by injecting hard currency into the economy. This is all part of Monetary policy. --Jayron32 06:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

It is fundamentally different from QE in a modern financial system (probably the best place for such a neologism 'QE' to be used) - which is a country exchanging one form of its own debt, currency, for another, bonds. All QE then does is monkey around with interest rates. Especially when they are low, QE is more or less a big nothing. Right now it is probably deflationary for consumer goods; but maybe bolsters some (financial) asset price inflation / bubbles. QE can also affect foreign exchange values by the Carry trade. Countries have infinite supplies of their own domestically denominated currency/debt which they issue at will. But they have only finite supplies of foreign currency/debt, like dollars. The regular currency sales referred to seem to have just been stepped up by the Egyptian government. But in these currency sales, the Egyptian central bank is shrinking the Egyptian pound money supply, however defined. So the desired effect is to bolster the Egyptian pound's foreign exchange value. It is making dollars more available to Egyptians, but they are then mostly used for imports and leave Egypt. These sales are much more similar to sales from a Strategic reserve like a Gold reserve or the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (United States) or an ancient Egyptian Ever-normal granary. (A forgotten cause of the 70s inflation was the USA's late 1960s abandonment of such commodity buffer stocks instituted in the New Deal.) The only real similarity to QE is when the country has a currency "backed by" commodity reserves, like a gold reserve, or has a foreign currency peg. (Back when the US had a gold standard, currency, but not bonds, were exchangeable for gold, so "QE" back then was similar to depleting a finite reserve.) But this is something that mostly, thankfully, belongs to the past, to third world dollarized nations, or to insane monetary systems (like the Eurozone's, alas). From our article on it, the Egyptian pound is a modern floating currency, but it is "tightly managed" by the Central Bank of Egypt. The "regular currency sales" the OP asks about appear to be the usual amount of dollars the Central Bank sells to manage the Egyptian pound's foreign exchange value. Its power to do so is not limitless, however, bounded by the amount of the very dollar reserves the new policy is using up, and the state's power to enforce Foreign exchange controls and the nation's power to export goods for dollars or borrow dollars. John Z (talk) 08:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Do other polities have "regular currency sales" or irregular currency sales, or (such) auctions (as described in the news article)?Curb Chain (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe the Wikipedia article Currency intervention has information on the general practice. Iraq, Iceland, Afghanistan are three that I have found. --Jayron32 22:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

A related question... how many major currencies are true floating rate currencies (I realize "managed float" complicates it... but I'd consider the Swedish krona in this category, for example)? I.e. not pegged to a precious metal or another currency? Shadowjams (talk) 07:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The Canadian dollar is not pegged to anything. Bielle (talk) 21:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

List of countries with floating currencies. The top three currencies by circulation – EUR, USD, JPY – are all floating rate currencies, and together represent the majority of currency in circulation. Number 4 (the Chinese renminbi) is allowed to float only in a narrow range; number 5 (the Indian rupee) has a managed float. After that, the other 175 or so circulating currencies all together account for less than a quarter of all the money out there. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Explorers Maps

I'm trying to find some of the maps made by explorers as they made their first journeys into america, but I can't remember what that kind of map is called so I can't search for it. Can someone please tell me the search term I should use? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.219.157 (talk) 14:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Portolan chart? Marco polo (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Portolan or Catalan if you're talking nautical maps. If you're looking for maps of land, like Capt. Smith's map, those aren't really a specific type, they're just maps - best bet is to search by year or by explorer's names. The Library of Congress has a nice collection of them as does David Rumsey.

Not to be confused with ortolans, which have different navigational paradigms. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Explorers didn't usually make maps while they were exploring. Maps were made later, based on data collected while exploring. As far as I know they are usually called maps, charts, etc, which makes web searches a bit tricky. Pfly (talk) 05:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Pfly is right on this one... The explorers would have recorded observations in their ship's logs (traveled in such-and-such a direction at so-and-so speed for some time, found a river mouth. Turned to a new direction, traveled some distance farther, found a headland, etc.) and then cartographers back in Europe would have taken that data and created a map from it. For example This page shows several maps, many of which were made based on data collected on Giovanni da Verrazzano's explorations. Nearly all of those maps were created in Europe by European cartographers. --Jayron32 05:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to contradict myself a bit, there are some counterexamples. At right is a map created by Bartholomew Columbus, brother of Christopher Columbus and himself a Cartographer. While Bartholomew did not, himself, accompany Columbus on his first few voyages, he did later on do so himself, and this map was created by Bartholomew in 1506, after he had taken some voyages to the New World. So, some maps were created by explorers, especially if said mapmaker had the good fortune to have a brother who was going that way anyways, and let him tag along. --Jayron32 06:02, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

And more. Juan de la Cosa was a cartographer and ship's captain who accompanies Columbus on his very first voyage (he owned the Santa María) and he was apparently one of the earliest to incorporate maps of the Americas onto world maps, doing so by 1500, see Map of Juan de la Cosa. I'm pretty sure such maps had a profound impact on later maps of the world to include the Americas, such as those of Jan of Stobnica about a decade later. --Jayron32 06:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

More early European (non-explorer) created maps of the time period: The Caverio map, the Waldseemüller map, Piri Reis map; none of those men set foot on a ship bound for the new world, but their maps were very important historically. --Jayron32 06:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually if we're talking inland North America, quite a few of the explorers did do their own maps, Nicollet, Powell, and of course Lewis & Clark, just off the top of my head. Kmusser (talk) 18:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Brontë sisters

Which writer receives more critical acclaim, Charlotte Brontë or Emily Brontë?114.75.50.34 (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Read Charlotte Brontë and Emily Brontë for an answer. To whit, the Wikipedia article on Charlotte Brontë states of Jane Eyre, her best known work: "Commercially it was an instant success, and initially received favourable reviews." The Wikipedia article on Emily Brontë states of Wuthering Heights, her only known novel: "it received mixed reviews when it first came out". You can pass your own opinion as to what that all means to you. --Jayron32 22:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You're comparing apples and pears. Because we have so much more of Charlotte's work, it is inevitably more of a curate's egg. Emily's only known book happens to be a stonker, which is generally highly regarded. But does a single highly-polished gem outweigh an assortment? You use the word "more" and I think the only way I can interpret what you mean in terms of "the volume/quantity", rather than "the mean", so you'd have to plump for Charlotte. NB Jayron, I think you missed the present tense in the question. --Dweller (talk) 23:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, maybe you can tell us what the word "stonker" means. I'm not finding it in EO. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

See stonking. Tevildo (talk) 00:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I note that the Wiktionary definition refers specifically to glider pilots - rest assurred that other English persons are also permitted to use the word. Tevildo (talk) 00:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

(EC) "stonking adjective /ˈstɒŋ.kɪŋ/ UK slang: used to emphasize how good something is. stonker noun [C usually singular] UK slang: something very good." Cambridge Dictionaries Online Alansplodge (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Also wikt:stonker. Alansplodge (talk) 00:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, chaps. For myself, I genuinely haven't a clue what "EO" means. --Dweller (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Online Etymology Dictionary / http://www.etymonline.com/ , I would assume. AnonMoos (talk) 10:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Etymology Online. And I just figured "stonking" was a Britishism for "stinking". Having been forced to read Jane Eyre in junior high or high school, I couldn't disagree. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Emily's poetry is generally considered to be more highly stonking than Charlotte's. Paul B (talk) 11:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Peter de Vries and Frank Herbert

Was De Vries was disliked by Herbert? There's a bad guy in Dune with a similar name, except it's Pieter. Thanks.199.33.32.40 (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The Dune character was Piter De Vries (note spelling). De Vries is a pretty common Dutch/Belgian surname, and Peter and its variants is a pretty common given name. Do you have any evidence this is any more than coincidence? Or do you believe there's no such thing as coincidence, and everything has an underlying meaning, as exemplified in The Fundamental Interconnectedness of All Things? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

(Much later)Sorry! I now realize you weren't trying to be harsh with me Jack of Oz, you just wanted to know how i came up with my rather random seeming question.(For which I gave no real reason).Also you just joked in a friendly way about coincidence. As for my reasons for suspecting it was modelled on de Vries, i read it so many months ago my reason was really just intuition, but thinking about it, I've decided Herbert spent a lot of words, at least in my recollection, describing the character de vries, and then had him die early on. In fact he may have described him more closely than many more important characters. Sorry again!-Richard Peterson76.218.104.120 (talk) 00:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Not at all, Richard. Nothing to apologise for. Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I did have other reasons for the question, and anyway I'm just asking not writing an encyclopedia article, so what's your beef? No, I do think there are coincidences...Are you one of those irascible people who get angry when you think you're smarter than someone else? You needn't be angry in this case. Maybe you should take a wikivacation.199.33.32.40 (talk) 23:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to have to dig around for the source, but I specifically remember reading, at some point in the last decade, that Herbert did name the character after De Vries. Whether that was because he disliked him or not, I don't know. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:03, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It may not be as clear cut as I'd thought. The one source I've found so far indicates that the character "may have been based on" the novelist. The same source also says that "Piter" is the "Russian version of the name Peter," and, well... it isn't, so I'm not sure how much credit to give that source. The Russian equivalent of "Peter" is "Piotr." I don't know how that's spelled in Cyrillic, but I'm pretty sure it can't be feasibly Romanized as "Piter." In both the David Lynch and Sci-Fi Channel adaptations of the book, the name was pronounced with a "long-I" diphthong; e.g., to rhyme with "miter" or "fighter." Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Peter in Russian is Пётр which is transliterated Pyotr, with the wye as a glide, not the long English i vowel. Herbert used a lot of real names and real names subtly changed Dar es Balat from Dar es Salaam, The Gesserits from the Jesuits. Muad Dib from Mahdi. A bunch of characters in his Santaroga Barrier have names from German philosophy. It's unlikely to be meant as an insult. μηδείς (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, Medeis! I was pretty sure I had something wrong there. And actually, "Mahdi" is used as a title in the book as well. In Arabic, مؤدّب mu’addib means "educator." Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's obviously a better etymology. One really only feels half human not being able to read non-European scripts. Herbert's early death was such a tragedy. μηδείς (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

By the way, Piter (Питер) is a possible Russian transliteration of (English) Peter. If you asked a random Russian to write Peter in Latin script, that's what you'd get. It's also the most common way to refer to St. Petersburg, but it's probably irrelevant. --216.239.45.130 (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That's because even the Russians call it by the Russianised German name "Sankt Peter burg", and not "Svyatoy Pyotr gorod". The closest they came was Petrograd, but that didn't last. Our English version adds an -s- after Peter, but it's not there in the Russian or the German. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, a phonetic Russky transkript of English Peter would be Питр without the final vowel, which would otherwise have effects on the tee that don't exist in the actual English. μηδείς (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

re German having no -s- : Um, it does and always has. The German article says that the Peter-and-Paul fortress was briefly called Sankt Pieterburch (sic), but that is, for all I know, no German (prob. some non-standard form of German or even better, Dutch).

μηδείς: I don't get your point. Wouldn't питэр, or, for that matter, пита (in accents of English where they say sistah etc) be even more phonetic? The T is pronounced differently in Russian than it is in English (regardless of palatalization) anyway. None of this changes anything about the fact that the English given name Peter is properly russified as Питер. Asmrulz (talk) 00:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The final r in English Peter is syllabic, there is no vowel, just as in Pyotr. The pronunciation Питэр "Pyee-tehr" assuming the stress it would draw would be worse than Питр "Pyeetr", and Питер "Pyee-chyer" even worser. Of course I am aware of the problems with aspiration, palatalization, and flapping or the r, or, god forbid, its lenition. μηδείς (talk) 00:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Asmrulz, um, you're sort of right, but not quite. Not Dutch, but not definitely anything else either. The name has actually changed more than the 3 times we canonically talk about (St Petersburg > Petrograd > Leningrad > St Petersburg). Just getting to the original St P was an evolutionary process. See the first 2 paragraphs of History of Saint Petersburg @ The new capital. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

And Gesserit may be based on the Jesuits, but the name is given a genuine Latin etymology: bene gesserit = "that he/she may behave well". --ColinFine (talk) 15:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

May 8

has any country or city recently gotten up and moved?

has there been any country or city that for whatever reason just decided en masse to completely move to a different location, different continent, etc. Meaning they simply did not leave anything behind at least in an administrative/legal sense. Just abandoned buildings (maybe) that are no longer under their authority. The main question is about the people, wealth, administrative bodies government and law, institutions, and perhaps even buildings would be moved. has anything like this happened? --91.120.48.242 (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The Migration Period saw a lot of tribes and nations shift around in Europe. More recently, and on a smaller scale, villages can shift around as rivers meanders, the local food supply is exhausted and so on. You might also find the article on Human migration useful. WegianWarrior (talk) 07:47, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The Swedish town of Kiruna is currently in the process of moving 3 kilometres to the east of its current position due to subsidence caused by being built on top of a mining area. As the plans stand, almost nothing will be left behind - most buildings will be demolished and replacements built, although the town hall among others will be dismantled and rebuilt in the new location. Progress is somewhat slow at the moment, although the building should begin (or be finished? I'm afraid I can't quite work out the Swedish sentence where I found this) this year. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Some of the people of Taiwan will tell you that their country is a continuation of a country that was once on the Chinese mainland - the Republic of China. HiLo48 (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hard to answer it in the strict sense of moving mostly all buildings etc. there is always the classic "ghost town" but more recently there have been several Enviromental Ghost Towns. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 08:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm much more interested in the NON-STRICT sense of NOT moving all the buildings but just moving government laws, etc. Much like how the United States continued to use British common law but "became independent" it's possible to imagine Brtain would have just "moved" there wholesale without continuing as a separate British government as well. Has anything like THAT happened? Also, perhaps the originating government could have given whatever remains over to some other neighboring government or whatever. The point is that most people and the government itself moves. --91.120.48.242 (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The Knights of Malta previously controlled Rhodes before being displaced. On a grander scale, the Portuguese imperial court moved en masse to Brazil in 1807, and continued to run the empire from there for about fifteen years. (At the end of this, in 1821, the court returned to Lisbon and Brazil quickly gained independence). The bulk of the people did not move, but the elites and the concept of the state did. I can't think of any other examples that aren't simply a wartime (or post-war) government in exile. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, these "city movings" are what I'm interested in - how about on the scale of countries? In this case I would think this would be possible/of interest if the "country" is primarily legal and "on paper" in the sense of wealth, rather than a lot of developed buildings and so forth. In this case it would be "relatively easy" for the country -meaning its government, laws, people - to move to a new location. Anything like that happen recently? --91.120.48.242 (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

In Australia the towns of Tallangatta and Jindabyne were relocated when dams were built, flooding their previous locations. I'm sure there would be many similar examples elsewhere. HiLo48 (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Leigh Creek,South Australia was moved so they could dig the coal out from underneath. TrogWoolley (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Various low-lying Pacific island nations are currently in advanced stages of planning to do this in the face of rising sea levels. If I get a chance later, I'll find some references. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Exactly! Anyone do that yet? This is pretty good, I'd be interested... --91.120.48.242 (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Our articles indicate that Tuvalu have decided against it so far, but neighbouring Kiribati may be starting work on such a move at present. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

An ancient case of a city moving was Pi-Ramesses to Tanis 20 miles away where they moved all the temples and statues, including blocks up to 200 tons in weight. Dmcq (talk) 08:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Not going back quite so far, Old Sarum moved to Salisbury (early 13th century) and a bit longer ago, Verulamium moved to Saint Albans (5th century). Alansplodge (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Not sure in what sense Verulamium can be said to have moved to St Albans. The Roman town of Verulamium was abandoned between AD 400 and 450; St Albans Abbey was founded nearby in the 8th century (probably using building materials taken from the remains of the Roman town), sacked by the Danes in the 9th century, and rebuilt by the Normans in the 11th century; and the medieval town of St Albans grew up around the abbey/cathedral. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Alansplodge (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course, there are numerous examples of a country's government upping and moving to another city, albeit often leaving the rest of the city behind them. In particular Brazil (Rio de Janeiro to Brasília), Belize (Belize City to Belmopan) and Nigeria (Lagos to Abuja). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

We have an extensive List of former national capitals. But, as you say, those are about the government relocating, not the entire city relocating. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The OP speaks of interest in situations where "the "country" is primarily legal and "on paper"" - with that in mind, how about the various Governments in exile, particularly those during the Second World War (e.g. Norway, the Netherlands and the Free French (although it's debatable whether the latter was a government in exile or a resistance organisation, ultimately they did exercise many of the powers of a national government)). - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

yes, yes, this is a very good direction we're going now. In these cases did some significant percentage of the population (meaning not just politicians and their immediate families) move as well? Why not? 91.120.48.242 (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

No. It was pretty much just politicians and royals, mainly because there was only time to evacuate VIPs as the Germans swept in. For an example of where a country's whole population has moved out (allowing for a slightly vague definition of 'country'), see Depopulation of Diego Garcia. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Portugal did once. See Transfer of the Portuguese Court to Brazil. During the Napoleonic Wars, the government of Portugal picked up and moved to Brazil and established itself as a government-in-exile. When the Napoleonic Wars ended, and European Portugal was returned to the Braganza dynasty, it continued to operate from Rio de Janiero, which was thus the seat of government for the whole country. When the Braganzas moved again back to Lisbon in the 1820s, one son stayed behind and established the Empire of Brazil as an independent country. --Jayron32 12:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

• Plenty of villages have been moved due to strip-mining. There is a list of German villages that fell victim to this at de:Liste abgebaggerter Ortschaften. Many of those were re-erected elsewhere. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The (current) capital of Norway, was previously located at what is now known as the Old Town, then after the fire of 1624, it was moved closer to Akershus Castle. It's not that far a distance, maybe 2-3 km. and in 1859, it became a part of the capital.

I suppose a good example of what you are looking could be the Mormon pioneers who due to religious persecution moved from Nauvoo, Illinois to Salt Lake City (which they built).

When China built the Three gorges dam, the government moved 1.3 million people. This, however, doesn't quite seem to fit what you're looking for, as my understanding is that you want a distinct group of people, in its entirety relocating, and retaining their own identity, culture and institutions. That doesn't seem to have happened here, as (according to the article) the people were just moved to the nearest cities (rather than new cities created for them).

For more examples, you could see the article Population transfer, though a brief skimming of the article indicates that these are usually dictated from the top (e.g. by an empire), and the transferred population doesn't always stay united or create a new separate political entity.V85 (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Resulting from the Partition of India and Pakistan, many communities migrated in one direction or the other. Not exactly 'cities or countries' but certainly whole communities moved large distances. And (as far as I know) these were not dictated from the top, unlike mass moves such as the German population of Königsberg. Sussexonian (talk) 19:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Some of the discussion above reminds me of Deserted Villages. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Some of topics listed on the disambiguation page "Exodus" probably fit all of your criteria.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Plymouth, Montserrat. RNealK (talk) 23:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Poland used to be called a "country on wheels" because its borders changed so often and so greatly. During & after WWII, for instance, the country moved west, some formerly German territory becoming Polish (also this article) some population moving to Germany & Austria (also this article - probably should be merged.) And some formerly Polish territory became Soviet, some people moving also.John Z (talk) 04:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

And in the stricter sense, a small farm where I grew up in Kent was literally moved, as a historically important structure in the way of a major building project the entire site was taken apart, labelled brick by brick and rebuilt exactly as it was some miles away. Meanwhile, some countries move around a bit on a slow enough time scale, as in the previous example of Poland, also the westward drift of the franks from Austrasia. Then there was the substantial movement of people during the final break-up of the Ottoman Empire, particularly between Greece and Turkey. 213.104.128.16 (talk) 18:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

First President to visit a ballgame.

US President and I would think it would be a baseball game, probably the old Washington Senators, anyone would know the date and who and the circumstances? Thanks! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 16:38, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Baseball was in many news stories by the 1880's, but a news archive search for the first US President to attend a game is not an easy thing, since every baseball league also had a "president." Taft attended 3 games in 1909, per [3]. Maybe someone went earlier. Searching for baseball and individual Presidents' names might find an earlier one. Edison (talk) 17:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

May 30 1909, Taft attended a game between a Chicago team and a Pittsburgh team. He took the mound for two poor pitches earlier at a college game: [4]. Teddy Roosevelt was into sports as well and might have attended a game during his term, before Taft. Edison (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Taft saw a Boston team beat a Washington team, April 19 1909:[select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FB0C16FB3E5D12738DDDA90A94DC405B898CF1D3]. I found stories where Roosevelt was in some town at the same time as a baseball game was played, but they did not say he attended the game. Edison (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

McKinley attended a college game, Williams College vs "North Adams," June 22 1899: [5]. Edison (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

President Harrison attended a game between the Washington Senators and the Philadelphia Phillies, June 25 1892: [6]. It was probably at Boundary Field, just outside DC. The Phillies won 9-2.[7]. Edison (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Finally: President Harrison was the first US President to attend a Major League baseball game, June 6 1892. Harrison sat in the press box and sometimes criticized the umpire's calls. [8]. It went into extra innings: [9]. The Cincinnatti Reds beat the Senator 7-4 in 11 innings, at Washington.[10]. Edison (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

And just for clarity's sake, that's Ben Harrison, not William Henry. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Great research and/or knowledge, impressive! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 00:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The newspaper says "this was the first game the president attended this session". That seems an unlikely thing to say if it was the first game he attended ever. 216.59.240.234 (talk) 02:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as the Major Leagues go, the first to attend a game was Harrison; the National League had existed during five administrations before his (founded in the last year of the Grant administration; then Hayes, Garfield, Arthur, and Cleveland). But the original question didn't require a Major League game, it only strongly implied it. Professional baseball existed prior to the founding of the existing Major Leagues; I speculate that given Andrew Johnson's love of the game ref, it's highly likely he attended at least one professional game while in office (it's not clear given the NABBP's gradual and piecemeal transition to professional versus amateur teams exactly when the cutoff date would be). If he himself went along with his staff to the Brooklyn-Philly-Washington doubleheader (SYN on my part) cited in that ref, then that's probably your best candidate for an answer here. This piece of fluff might seem to indicate that Lincoln would have been the first president to actually watch a game as a spectator while in office, but a) it doesn't come right out and say so; and b) if it's important to the question that the teams be professional teams, Lincoln was a few years too early for that. Hey Bugs, got any input? ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:01, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

My baseball knowledge in this area is rather thin. Legend has it that Lincoln played baseball, though was certainly not a professional. Professionalism was sporadic until the Cincinnati Red Stockings "came out", and suddenly every well-known team followed, and then leagues started forming. Washington had a couple of fully professional teams starting around 1870. Prior to 1869, it's kind of hard to pin down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Very interesting Zenswashbuckler & Baseball Bugs! I stumped the Bugs on Baseball, I know how extremely difficult a challenge that will ever be again ;-) ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 01:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

And I'm partly wrong: the Nationals article contains this sentence:

In the summer of 1865 the Nationals invited the Philadelphia Athletics and Brooklyn Atlantics, two of the major teams of the era, to Washington, losing to the former 87-12 and to the latter 34-19, before 6,000 spectators, including President Johnson. They "jealously guarded their amateur status by refusing all payments, including travel expenses."

But it also says:

One writer, Thomas Henry, said the U. S. Treasury Department was "the real birthplace of professional base ball in Washington." As a source of patronage for good players, this department was widely exploited after the Civil War. In addition, Washington players benefited from the collection plates passed at games. By this kind of enterprise Washington clubs were able to keep a cadre of good players and to offer excellent accommodations. In 1867 the Nationals' park was located on a field four hundred feet square, surrounded by a ten foot fence, and shaded on the north side by roofed stands. To discourage gamblers, a sign which read "Betting Positively Prohibited" was posted.

So this (the timing of the encroachment of professionalism) still says Andrew Johnson to me, just not that one particular widely-celebrated day. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 20:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks all . . . especially Edison & Zenswashbuckler, great research! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 00:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Is there an article which could benefit from the refs cited here? Or should there be one of those dreaded criss-cross synthesis articles US Presidents and baseball?Edison (talk) 03:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There is a section at Ceremonial first pitch#Presidential first pitches which you may be interested in. --Jayron32 04:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I am thinking you may be on to something Edison, I was surprised at the volume, interest and unique research uncovered in this answer, seems like there is potential demand for an encyclopedic entry on this subject, Jayron32's link is helpful but limited in scope to just the first pitches. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin-like currencies

What's to prevent someone from writing another program that makes yet another currency similar to bitcoins? 67.243.4.94 (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing except the difficulty of persuading other people to use that "currency" -- using it means buying and selling with it or trading other currencies for it. Generally nobody except gamblers will trade "real money" for a currency unless they have some reason to believe that it is secure and stable. Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

See Fiat money and Banknote, which is basically what most major currencies including bit coin rely on for being accepted. If enough people believe in the dollar/yen/euro/bitcoin then it has value, like magic! A great read on the mechanics on this is the book Paper Money by Adam Smith, if my memory serves its almost a blow by blow of the life cycle of a currency. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 17:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That's right, but in the case of the dollar, yen and euro, I daresay the word for this belief is "rational". When you, me or anyone expects that Mr. Taxman comes calling, you'd better have the dollars, yen or euros he wants, so you can buy your way out of jail or keep him from taking your stuff. And even if he doesn't visit you personally, he visits enough people for your belief to be rational. As for bitcoins?John Z (talk) 23:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

It's already been done: see Litecoin and PPCoin. -- 205.175.124.30 (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

John Z, great point, that too takes a belief in the system as well, there was always L. Ron Hubbard and now Berkshire Hathaway adopting some of that with the whole "bury you in court filings for years" theory. Then just always the good ole Tax Revolts.

Good points 205.175.124.30. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way}]] 00:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

PPCoin? Is that what you use if you need to "spend a penny"? Dismas|^(talk) 04:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

May 9

Why is there a liquor ban during the days around the 2013 Filipino presidential election?

Is it because they fear drunk voting and don't trust people to be responsible, or is there another official rationale from the source? 67.163.109.173 (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Would not have any specific knowledge of the laws or culture there, but I do know that in 19th century America many elections on the "frontier" were even conducted in saloons or taverns and many a candidate or party would "buy" elections with alcohol, I guess it would be similar to how some Romeos ply the object of their affections with liquor today and then ask them to choose something that most sober "dates" would have a hard time acquiescing to. The ability to change someones mind about politics or anything else with alcohol is as old as history, them regretting their choice the next day is as old as politics lol. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I have lived in very few (I believe no) places where liquor has been legal to sell on a certain time weekly centering on Sunday morning. Elections are at least as postuous. μηδείς (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That is not a unique type of ban. Thailand does the same, and also in Norway it is illegal to sell alcohol on election day. In Norway, the argument that is used is to preserve the 'peace and dignity' of the election. As for the Philippines, you can read about their alcohol ban in this article from the New Strait Times. There is also a ban on large amounts of cash, and the reason seems to be to prevent vote buying.

I don't know much about how elections (and election rigging!) work in the Philippines, but I can imagine alcohol being used to influence voters in several ways. One is that it is a substitute for cash: instead of offering a person cash to cast his vote a certain way, you offer him a bottle (or three) of liquor. Another way is described in Allende's The House of the Spirits, where the landlords got all their workers drunk the night before the election, drove them to the polling place and handed them a ballot, thereby securing victory for the landlords' preferred party. V85 (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Another relevant novel is George Eliot's Felix Holt, the Radical. In an early 19th century English town the two main parties "treat" non-voters in the pubs, in the hope that they will come en masse to the election in the town square and sway the voters. A commentary on electoral life before the 1832 reform. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, Medeis, you got me. Postuous? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 06:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm intoxicated on μηδείς's vocabulary ;-) but its ok--I voted for him! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

[Here is a tale from "old Chicago" of an alderman who imported his constituents, renting out local saloons and boarding houses to temporarily give them lodging and beer. There is a nice cartoon on the third page. Beer wagons patrolling the wards, picking up voters to deliver them to the polls slightly lubricated was the subject of several cartoons as well. This particular politician is mentioned in Sinclair's The Jungle which describes the voting buying process in detail. (As an aside I notice that Chicago had two rival Democratic parties - and the Republicans merely endorsed the more high-brow Democratic candidate instead of running their own.) Rmhermen (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Postuous, adj., characterized by or subject to posing or (especially moral) posturing. "Neither Bush nor Obama was personally troubled by marijuana use; their official campaign positions were postuous political compromises." μηδείς (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

In this age of lots of free information, it's funny to see one not in any free dictionary that I can find (dictionary.com, wiktionary, Merriam webster). 20.137.2.50 (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, don't worry, I am not going to charge you for that portflambeau. μηδείς (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

That gets as many ghits as postuous, or as few. Sometimes I almost wish you were more of a "sophistical rhetorician, intoxicated by the exuberance of your own verbosity". But a lass and a lack is what we have.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Puns are the lowest form of wit... --Jayron32 21:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It's bad enough to be asked to explain the obvious. Then to be criticized for offering the requested explanation? Then to have one's critic criticked? The girls in Paris is Burning are far less vicious. μηδείς (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't dismay μηδείς, we were just about to find out the true meaning of Fahrvergnügen! besides if you are looking for wit the reference desks would not be the gold standard, I'm just happy we all have a sense of humor ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Everything is Obvious * Once You Know the Answer :) 20.137.2.50 (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Ho Chi Minh

I'm looking for a reliable source that clearly states something similar to this idea "The Vietnamese government promotes Ho's celibacy to symbolize his total devotion to the revolution." Thanks!65.128.150.59 (talk) 04:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

See the last paragraph of Ho Chi Minh#Legacy, which is the only mention of his celibacy that we have. It seems relevant. --BDD (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Our article Tang Tuyet Minh is interesting here. Marco polo (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

unreferenced text in Taira no Tomomori

This seemed to be unreferenced for years since I tagged it: "Tomomori has become a popular subject for kabuki plays. A tattoo of Tomomori is often meant to signify strong ties with illegal drug and weapons trafficking."--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 07:56, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).

Helpful link: Wikipedia:Citing sources. --Dweller (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the OP asking for help finding a source rather than for help editing the page? I've tried, but so far am only bringing up Wikipedia mirrors. Perhaps a search in Japanese? 184.147.137.171 (talk) 12:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The Tattoo Encyclopedia doesn't mention illegal activity. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 12:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

[11]I can't eliminate the possibility that this claim takes the one that is already in wikipedia. Anyway, since the tattoo thing only comes from one book, it does not seem suffifiently significant.--朝鲜的轮子 (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, I took it out. Too bad no one could help you. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 14:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

John Buchan's family

Did John Buchan have a family member or friend named Peter? I was just noticing how frequently he uses the name for a character. Proving a bit tough to google because of the number of people called John Buchan - appreciate any help. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I see this has gone unanswered for awhile, just a question really I am assuming you are wondering if he bases these characters on a real life person, if so do all the "Peter" characters have similar or even exactly the same traits? Looking at Buchans wikipedia article he probably had several professional relationships/acquaintances/friendships/run ins with "Peters", should we be looking for someone that matches a certain characteristic? Just for reference its been revealed that John Steinbeck substituted his wife for Charley his dog in dialog (or would that be monologue) in his Pulitzer winning (arguably Pulitzer attention-getting) Travels with Charley, so reversing this we may even be talking about a non-human, authors have been known to do it before. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 14:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

A recent biography, John Buchan: The Presbyterian Cavalier by David Godine and Andrew Lowrie, says that Buchan had a younger brother named Alastair, 20 years his junior, who Buchan nicknamed "Peter". It doesn't give any indication that this "Peter" formed the basis of the characters. Note that we actually have an article about the most notable of those Peters, Peter Pienaar, who appears in two of Buchan's most widely read books. Looie496 (talk) 15:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It is another clue that he really liked the name though :) Thanks. Market, the three Peters I know of (Pienaar, Peter John Hannay and Peter Pentecost) are supposed to be characters the reader likes and admires; that's all I can think of in common. And they look gentle but are actually tough. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Glad to help! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

National statistics

Hi, I am interested in small business trends in the USA. I need national level information on the percentages of businesses that created new jobs and increased their revenues (and by how much) in the last two years (2012 and 2011). I have looked at the USA government sites website but am unclear on how I could find this data. What are these numbers?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krutij (talk • contribs) 18:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The SBA has yearly economic reports you may wish to peruse here. You might not have as much luck with 2012 and 2011 since they are so recent. uhhlive (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Businesses that support same sex marriage.

There use to be a list here. What happened to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.247.243 (talk) 22:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

List of organizations that support same-sex marriage in the United States --Viennese Waltz 22:45, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

As opposed to supporting it everywhere? μηδείς (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I doubt these companies have said they support same-sex marriage in Saudi Arabia... (at least not if they want to continue to sell their products in Saudi Arabia.) Blueboar (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I note the lack of oil companies on that list, or at least I didn't see any. That might not be a coincidence. I also suspect Red Lobster would not be welcome in Saudi Arabia, assuming Muslims are not supposed to eat shellfish. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

According to Comparison of Islamic and Jewish dietary laws Muslims can eat shellfish. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It's complicated. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

As opposed to companies everywhere, supporting it in countries where they operate?

That said, the idea of a company having a well-defined political position on something like this is weird to me. Here is the UK, the law requires companies to treat same-sex and opposite-sex couples fairly, and the equal marriage question is mostly haggled over by politicians and religious figures. I would think it very strange if Tesco issued a formal statement on the subject. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but Tesco don't have any real business outside the UK to lose. No one in the USA wants their stores, which is why the chain is being sold off. Lots of UK businesses gave their support to the gay marriage bill and there is also the Stonewall equality index too for a gay-friendly business directory. Plus i'm sure the Coalition for Equal Marriage website lists a lot of supportive businesses? At least it did when i last visited. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Do we have a similar list for companies who have declared that they refuse to support, or declared that they oppose, same-sex marriage? --Lgriot (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm unsure about big companies, there's a few smaller ones who've announced it and hit the headlines. There's probably a bunch advertised on the Coalition for Marriage website, just as there is for pro-gay marriage support at the Coalition for Equal Marriage site. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Tesco's venture in to the US (and a few other places, as with most other similar businesses expansion has had its hits and misses) may not have had much success, but as per our article, it's the third largest retailer in the world by revenues and second largest by profits and it seems clear this isn't just coming from the UK. It may be small compared to Walmart, but it's still a relatively successful international business. However I don't get what this has to do with the question. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Quite. I had hoped it was obvious that I was not talking about a UK-based retailer's support (or not) for same-sex marriage specifically in the USA. That was, er, rather the point of my earlier remark. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Even if there isn't an official statement, some companies in the US do make sure that it is clear that they support LGBT rights and marriage equality. For example, they may have non-discrimination rules and domestic partner policies for employees and show same-sex couples in advertising. There have been cases where a group like NOM raises a stink about it and the company makes an official statement in favor of equality, refusing to back down due to the pressure. It has also become more common for people to petition companies to stop donating to groups such as the Boy Scouts that have descriminatory policies, especially if the group's policies contradict the company's own progressive policies. When the companies withdraw funding, they tend to issue a statement explaining why. On a smaller scale, local LGBT groups often produce lists of local small businesses that support LGBT rights and same-sex marriage, produced by speaking with the owners/operators of the businesses. 38.111.64.107 (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sort of with Alex Tiefling here. An individual who supports same-sex marriage, that is completely understandable. But I'm not sure what purpose is served by a company having an official position on a subject like this. It's not like they can require all their employees to think similarly as a condition of their employment. If it's the law, they have no say about it either way. If it's not the law, pretty much ditto. I guess it's a gesture of moral support for a change in the law, on the part of the company's owners or directors; but surely they must be aware they'd be potentially alienating some of their staff members, and politicising their work place. Do businesses get involved in or take positions on other social or political issues? Does Wal-Mart, for example, officially support either major party? Or have a position on the American involvement in Afghanistan? Or on the health care debate? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:16, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this all really about the specific company extending spousal benefits to same sex couples? I know that has made the news before as Company X supports same sex partnerships, meaning the company is extending benefits to them as if they were spouses. Wasn't that a big part of the DOMA and Cal Prop 8 Supreme Court argument? ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 13:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh, but that, while obviously related, is still a quite different issue. "Extending benefits to [same sex couples] as if they were spouses" is a choice companies have always been able to make, theoretically at least. And a lot of places have laws supporting that, and proscribing many forms of discrimination based on sexual preference. But supporting same-sex marriage is another ball game. It might seem the logical next step to a lot of people; but a lot of others, including some gay people, do not want it personally and/or are opposed to it on principle. The jurisdictions (and people) that have not yet come to the party about same-sex marriage are often the same ones that are the strongest when it comes to support for discrimination-free laws for same-sex people. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 13:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Opposing same sex marriage as a corporation may lead to negative publicity, Chick-fil-A. On the other hand I can't think of much in the way of negative publicity surrounding Disney, or any of the others, for their support. Also see List of opponents of same-sex marriage in the United States but there does not appear to be any companies listed in the organisations section. And Category:Organizations that oppose same-sex marriage. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

To JackofOz and CambridgeBayWeather, my comment was just refining what a company can tangibly do. Unless I'm missing something other than a tolerant environment and benefits etc. don't any other stances stray into semantical differences of something more than just the dictionary definition of "supporting". ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 17:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm seeing this from the perspective of an employee of said company. Personally, I'm all for marriage between any two consenting adults who are not married to someone else or are close relatives. But my workmate in the next cubicle regards marriage as strictly between a man and a woman, and I respect his position. Our company really ought to be respecting both posititions and not taking sides, since nobody is ever going to marry a company. The directors, owners, managers etc will all have their individual personal opinions, and I can guarantee they will not all align.

Anecdote time: A couple of lifetimes ago, I was a member of a certain union, which existed for the benefit of its members and supported their welfare in a workplace sense. At the time there was a public political issue about whether Australian uranium should be sold to foreign countries. My union had nothing whatsoever to do with uranium mining or any sort of mining or even any sort of industry; it was a clerical union for public servants. But in its wisdom it decided to have an official position on the uranium issue. I don't remember now whether they were pro or con, but that's irrelevant. There was a lot of debate on the issue; there was a group of union members who agreed with the union's position, and there was a group who opposed it. Then there were those who felt our union had no business sticking its nose in an issue in which it or its members had no stake. The union reasoned that a buyer country could make a bomb that could be used against Australia, and if a relevant workplace was blown to kingdom come in a nuclear holocaust, this would have an obvious impact on the welfare of union members. Many felt this association was too third-hand. They eventually held a plebiscite, and the "no-position" group proved to far outweigh the other two, and as a result the union ceased to hold any official position on the matter. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

There are in fact business reasons for supporting same-sex marriage. Larger U.S. businesses have to operate across a number of U.S. states, each with its own rules about tax withholding, benefits, and so on, for different categories of same-sex and different-sex couples. The U.S. federal government, meanwhile, has its own, often contrasting set of rules for those areas. The result is a nightmare for payroll departments, especially in cases where an employee works in one state and lives in another. The trend seems to be toward recognition of same-sex marriage in more and more states. Companies that support nationwide recognition of such marriages do so partly because it would cut administrative costs. Marco polo (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course, probably even a bigger business reason for this position is that it attracts employees and customers, including not just gay and lesbian people (who overwhelmingly support same-sex marriage in the United States) but younger heterosexuals as well. Marco polo (talk) 23:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

May 10

Cæcilia Knudsdatter

What happen to the children of Cæcilia Knudsdatter? I just know her son Charles was duke of Halland but who gave him that title and did he or his brother Knud leave descendants?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:35, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Not turning up much.

• According to the list at Duke of Halland, Carl did not pass the title to any child or brother; the second holder is Canute VI of Denmark 40 years later.

• The Swedish Wikipedia article on her husband Jarl Erik mentions no sons, only a daughter Inga Eriksdotter, who died in 1157 and was married to Asser Skjalmsen. Apparently Inga and Asser had at least one child, Absalon Hvide, who became an archbishop. If that's the right Erik?

• Because to get really confusing, this geneology article on Cecilia says her husband was actually Erik Jedvardsson and her son Canute I of Sweden, which doesn't match either Wikipedia article on Cecilia. We say Erik Jedvardsson's wife was Christina Björnsdotter.

Can you find a translation of Saxo Grammaticus that includes books 10 to 16? According to the Swedish wikipedia, that's the source for Caecilia and her husband. I can only find books 1 to 9 in English, which is before he gets to the 11th century. Maybe you can try at the language desk? 184.147.137.171 (talk) 13:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Then who was the Charles Eriksen, Duke of Halland.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:02, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

update on assistance

I'm trying to get through to Shakescene. This is in regards to creating an article about the Serpentine font style. I left a message in his talk page. Plus, I put some noted uses in his created article. He hasn't gotten back to me in well over a month. I wonder what's going on.142.255.103.121 (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

He last edited 5 days ago. Other than that, there's not much we can do. Wikipedia is anonymous and volunteer, and those two facts mean that people can come and go as they please, and no one is obligated to do much of anything. However, if there's anything specific I (or perhaps someone else) can help you with, perhaps we can be useful? --Jayron32 02:40, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

:User:Shakescene does have email enabled. Have you tried that? Click on the 'email this user' link at the bottom of the talk page.
Sorry, you need to be a registered user to do that Rojomoke (talk) 03:41, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Many of your contributions are of the type: "would you please..." in diskussions. User Shakescene wanted to help you in March and prepared User:Shakescene/Serpentine for you. You already edited it. Become a registered user (it is free, say: User:Serpentine) and create the Serpentine font article yourself if you feel it is lacking. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 15:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

London Geography

Has anyone calculated the size of the different London fare zones? Something that says: Zone 1 is estimated to be 19 square miles, zone2+zone1 is 50 square miles, etc.

For those who are not familiar, I mean these: [12]

To preempt comment like "How do you define the border between 2 zones?", I'll say this: the border is exactly halfway between a zone x station and the nearest zone x+1 station, unless there is a boundary station (like Elephant and castle) in which case the border is exactly at the main entrance of the station. But if someone else has figures with another (reasonnably formal) definition, I'll take that instead.

And I don't mind these figures in square kilometers, obviously. --Lgriot (talk) 12:28, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

A very brief Google search didn't reveal anything. The original zones included London Bus operations too - there's a fixed fare now - so the zone boundaries will correspond to actual roads, rather than the vague representations on the Tube map. I'm fairly certain that the northern boundary between Zones 3 and 4 is the North Circular Road. Alansplodge (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

English weight in Medieval times

How much in modern England weight (pounds) would a person weigh today if in the High Middle Ages he weighed 110 pounds in London then? LordGorval (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

There were several different weights known as "pounds" back then. Our Pound (mass) article says a "tower pound" (one kind of pound typically used in London in the period you are asking about) was about 350 grams in modern weight, so 110 of those pounds would be about 85 modern pounds. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I'm not sure if medieval man shared our obsession with weighing himself, or how easy it was to do it. However, if he used the Avoirdupois system (after about 1300), each pound was equal to 6992 grains. It was changed to 7,000 grains in the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, which remained the same when Imperial units were introduced in 1824, the ones we still use today, if we don't use those funny foreign metric measures. The difference between a medieval pound and the later one is only 8 grains - there are 437.5 grains in an Imperial ounce (so not enough to worry about). There were however, several different types of pound weight in use in England in the middle ages - Pound (mass)#Historical use has the details.

Please note that British people invariably measure themselves today in stones, a stone being 14 pounds. So no Englishman today would say that he weighed 110 pounds, he would say that he was 7 stone and 12 pounds (very skinny for a modern bloke).[13][14] If you buy a set of scales in the UK, they are marked in stones and pounds (big numbers) and kilogrammes (little numbers). I don't know how far back that goes, but the stone was certainly a common measure in late medieval England. Alansplodge (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Just curious, when babies are born today in the UK is their weight announced in kilograms or pounds? HiLo48 (talk) 02:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

[or stones]? Shadowjams (talk) 03:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it would be a rather large baby to be even one stone. I'll admit I was being a little mischievous in highlighting that stones are unlikely to always be used for peoples' weight. HiLo48 (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Babies are measured in pounds and ounces in the UK. We still haven't got used to that barbaric French metric system. Milk and beer are measured in pints, but spirits are metric. We still use miles, and most people still only understand Fahrenheit. We use stones for adults, and feet and inches for height. I built a table in Japan for my wife using only my own body measurements, and she was shocked to see me do it. Imperial measures are completely easy to understand and use. Unless you are bigger or smaller than me. :) 77.102.198.149 (talk) 06:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Babies in the UK are weighed in kilograms and grams for the health professionals' reference, but the weight is also converted into pounds and ounces because parents and grandparents still seem to like that. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean that the table weighs the same as you? HiLo48 (talk) 06:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

No, using my body parts as measurements for length, as I am sure you are aware. It's an old Irish trick (that I made up when I was building the table). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 08:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

People are able to estimate lengths using their own bodies, for example; finger tip to nose is about a yard (you can compensate for having short arms by turning your head away), finger tip to finger tip is a fathom as long as you're 6 feet tall - ask Vitruvius. Inches can be measured with your thumb, or span, and feet with your foot. Some folks know the length of their forearm, which used to be called a cubit. I regularly use fathoms to measure rope - 3.5 fathoms is perfect for a square lashing on 2" diameter spars (HiLo knows what I'm talking about). Alansplodge (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm certainly old enough to still be able to use the imperial measurements, even though Australia metricated properly back in the 1970s (unlike some other places). But I don't think I've ever used a fathom. I live in an area on the outskirts of Melbourne that had its roads laid out over 150 years ago. It's good to explain to younger folk that it's based on a one mile grid, with the main easements giving us nice wide three chain roads (very useful for droving sheep and cattle) and lesser roads having one chain easements. Those younger folk do look at me funny sometimes. HiLo48 (talk) 09:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

If they play cricket, they'll know how far a chain is (the distance between the wickets). Alansplodge (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I always found it amusing that the length from your elbow to your wrist is the same as the length of your foot, even though they look completely different lengths. Also, your belt perfectly matches the length of your elbow to hand, when wrapped on it like a belt. Fingers can be used to roughly measure centimetres (as I often do in tabletop wargaming). When I was in Hungary, we got a desk for my apartment, and in order to measure the size needed, I used my feet (size 10s). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I tried the belt thing and it works for me, with the caveat that I'm a bit skinnier than the average. It wouldn't work for those who are fond of pies. Alansplodge (talk) 16:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

(I think it's actually because all belts are made the same size, and the adult forearm is generally uniform) :) KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

May 11

German Calvinist states

Out of the major German states (states during German Empire and major HRE states with significance but failed persist to 1871) how many of their ruling families were Calvinist as oppose to Lutheran? I know the ruling families of Prussia, the Electoral Palatinate and Hesse-Kassel were Calvinist.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That is already a pretty exhaustive list. You could add the Netherlands (before 1648 part of HRR), see religious map of 1618. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Can you list the states/families that you need? 184.147.137.171 (talk) 13:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

That map shows Anhalt and the Nassau principalities as Calvinist as well. I don't think there were ever that many. john k (talk) 00:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

French work, but I only know the Dutch title

This is a beaut. I am looking for the original title of work by Xavier de Montépin, translated to Dutch as De Wraak van den Koddebeier; this translation was published sometime around 1894 (see ad here, page 4). WorldCat doesn't have it, and these old newspapers and a book I'm using to reference Lie Kim Hok is the only proof I have that it exists. Can anyone help me find the original title? (If this helps, an adaptation of the translation was "a story of adultery, murder and revenge set in the context of provincial Chinese aristocracy"; a character "whom the hero thinks he has killed and whose death he bitterly regrets turns out to be alive after twenty years disappearance, during which time he has suffered from loss of memory.") — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, de Montépin wrote a lot! There's a list or 80 or 90 books in his French Wikipedia article Xavier de Montépin. I have to go, but if no one else can help you look through them later, I can do some of the list. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• He certainly did, and none of the titles I saw could be translated literally as De Wraak van den Koddebeier. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Koddebeier should be "garde-chasse" in French? here are the results for that. (I really have to go now). Unfortunately, nothing came up for "Xavier de Montépin" +Chine. 184.147.137.171 (talk) 14:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. The writer (Lie) tended to make his stories more Chinese focused, so I wouldn't expect China to play a role. *looking* — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Brinkman's alphabetische lijst van boeken, landkaarten en verder in den boekhandel voorkomende artikelen from 1886 refers to it on p. 191 as an onuitgegeven handschrift, which translates as unpublished manuscript. Looie496 (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• I can't see that; does it say the French version was unpublished? The ad from 1895 says "De Wraak van den Koddebeier, uit het Fransch van XAVIER DE MONTEPIN, een werk dat men tienmaal uitleest" (The Gamekeeper's Revenge, translated from French, by Xavier de Montépin, an opus that you read ten times), so something was published. The translation certainly got to the Dutch East Indies if Lie was able to use it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The second work advertised in 1895 is De Vermakelijke spraakkunst by Jacob van Lennep. Lennep also influenced Lie Kim Hok. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 17:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• Yep, although the sources only point to Klaasje Zevenster as one which was extensively copied. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Google Books turns up some more works not on the French Wikipedia list. Searching for "Xavier de Montépin" and "garde-chasse" in Google Books brings up "La nuit du vingt septembre (L'idiot)", "La Comtesse de Pern", and "La femme de paillasse" as works that mention a garde-chasse. (Although I am sure that Google Books does not necessarily include all of Montépin's works, so it may not be too useful.) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

• I feel my hair falling out... I guess Montepin was too productive. Considering how difficult to track down this blasted book is, having anything more than what Tio writes would be close to OR... might not want to worry too much about it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The 1895 ad is a bit strange, for it sells the eight items together at a loss for 1.25 Dutch guilders. This might hint at the possibility that this was a remainder of stock. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm... interesting. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• What a strange ad. For 1.25 you get all that--including a promissory note from a notary for a cutlery set, or its value (300 guilders). It's a scam, Crisco: don't send them your 1.25. And note that you're supposed to send them the money via money order marked "inexplicable packet"--but "inexplicable" here can mean "undeclarable" (like a customs term) as well. Crisco, you're likely to get Shanghaied if you persist with this kind of underground activity. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Good thing I don't have any 1890s currency drifting around. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

• Try and get this from the library and look at page 231. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Agree, good idea (there should be a copy somewhere in the city). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Are these coins original?

They are selling 2000, 3000 years old coins and starting price is 10 US dollars or so. Are these original? --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:11, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak to these coins in particular, but according a my google searching, old coins aren't rare. That would suggest to me that there is no reason for these old coins not to be real. But you'd have to do more research than I did to be sure. Mingmingla (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Titodutta is very confused. The problem is the coins eBay is selling for $10—15, similar coins are being priced thousands of dollars here. The price of the first coin in the list is half million dollar! --Tito Dutta (contact) 19:59, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Be careful when buying coins on eBay. It's safer to go to a reputable dealer. According to Criticism of eBay, it is estimated that about a quarter of all ancient coins and about two-thirds of all antiquities sold on eBay are modern forgeries.[15]--Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I will start with the caveat that I don't know anything about these coins, and as such, I can't really speak for how real they may be. As Mingmingla says, old coins aren't necessarily rare. I have some Roman coins that someone dug up somewhere that were bought from a coin collectors shop. What determines the price is how rare the coin is, but, as generally is true with all collectibles, how 'nice' it is. The more complete it is, and the less worn out it is, the more it is worth. (Some of those eBay pictures do show a massive quantity of coins, which should speak to their lack of rarity, and another is so worn out it's just a shapeless piece of metal.) Getting old coins rather inexpensively is possible (but they're not worth much if you want to sell them on). Again, I don't know about these coins in particular (heck! even my Roman coins could be forgeries), so if you are interested in getting genuine antiques, approach with caution. V85 (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

One comment on condition: Many of those coins listed in "excellent" condition are clearly not so. They are so worn you can't even tell what the original image was. StuRat (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

They mean in excellent condition for a really old and worn and scratched and mangled coin.  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Why not buy one for 10 US dollars or so and believe all your life it is worth thousands of dollars. You will be happy all your life. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 17:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I was planning to gift my school's history teacher. I left school in 2006 but he was a great teacher. Gifting a fake coin might be embarrassing! --Tito Dutta (contact) 17:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure your teacher would be OK with being given to some third party as a gift?  :) -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Higher education in USA

Three questions on Higher education in USA:

• What Percentage of students are admitted to Harvard and MIT out of total students who have registered?
• Since US have individual state citizenships are only students of Massachusetts eligible for admission to Harvard and MIT? And if students of other states of USA came to study at Harvard and MIT where they stay during college life?
• Are there any universities in USA which teach all courses only in spanish? Solomon7968 (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

  1) In 2013, Harvard admitted 5.8% of people who applied for admission: [16]. For fall 2012, MIT admitted 8.9% of the people who applied for admission: [17].

  2) States do not have state citizenship. They have state residency, but that is not citizenship. IOn the U.S. the only citizenship is to be a citizen of the U.S. as a whole. You are a citizen of the U.S. but a resident of the state where you sleep at night. While all 50 states have "public" colleges and universities that offer some form of cheaper admissions for in-state residents (most require you to live in a state for a minimum of 1 year before your first year of college before applying for in-state tuition), and some state schools also have quotas for in-state students (that is, they can only take so many out-of-state students), neither Harvard nor MIT are state-supported schools. They are fully private schools that have no ties to the State of Massachusetts excepting that they happen to be on top of it. For Harvard, the breakdown of students by region is here. Only 17% of students come from the New England region, of which Massachusetts is the most populous state; that means that it is likely that no more than 10-15% at most of Harvard students come from Massachusetts. Here is the raw data for MIT by state. It has total numbers, and not percentages, but the U.S. State with the most MIT students (undergrad and graduate) is California with 1201, while Massachusetts is in second place with 1008, that 1008 is less than 10% of the 11,000+ total students.

  3) This article may be of interest to you if you are interested in studying at a U.S. university which teaches in Spanish. The Ana G. Méndez University System - Universidad del Este, a school based in Puerto Rico, has branch campuses in Orlando and Miami, Florida, and plans to expand into Tampa as well, according to that article. There may be others, but that is all I can find. --Jayron32 19:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

On point 2, the 14th amendment disagrees with you: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. It's true that this sort of "state citizenship" is a bit unusual, in the sense that you can get a different one apparently just by moving, with no other formalities whatsoever. And I'm not clear what, if any, juridicial effect it might have. Some states have treason laws — I wonder if a Californian who made war against California could be convicted of treason against California, but a Nevadan could not? --Trovatore (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

States have citizenship, and that's a fact that the 14th amendment diminished more than it created. That's basic constitutional law. The Privileges and Immunities clause (there's 2) has more relevance here. Shadowjams (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

So what juridicial effect, if any, does this citizenship have? All the distinctions for taxation and tuition and such seem to talk about residency rather than citizenship. The notion of being a "citizen of California" seems to show up mostly in speeches. --Trovatore (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Saenz v. Roe would be one, and we have an article on that. I'm sure there's more. Shadowjams (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Privilege to travel and work between states would be one, btw. Shadowjams (talk) 22:02, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Those seem to be more about the limitations of the notion of state citizenship than about its effects. What juridicial effect, if any, does state citizenship have? Meaning, what is the difference if I am a citizen of California rather than Nevada? Your answers seem to be, not about what is the difference, but about what is the same, which is directly opposite to what I asked. --Trovatore (talk) 09:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

State citizenships existed before the U.S. constitution came into existence, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause is interpreted as meaning that a citizen of any state has the same rights in other states as do citizens of those states. The Dred Scott decision has a lot about state citizenship, but not much of it applies to today's law... AnonMoos (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Paul the Apostle

According to the New Testament, Paul apparently went to Jerusalem, Asia Minor, Damascus, Macedonia, Corinth, Rome, and a lot of other places. He even claimed in his letter to the Romans that he was visiting Spain, although our article seems to indicate he never made it. Was it really that easy to travel across the Roman Empire for a man of moderate socioeconomic status, or is his "travelogue" somewhat exaggerated? How would he have traveled? Could you just rent a horse or boat, buy a map, start traveling, and stay at hotels along the way? Was there some empire-wide pony network? Also, was there a postal service to deliver his letters, or did he use private couriers? --Bowlhover (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

What makes you think he went on his own? He would have had some people with him. For a start, he would need numerous translators and interpreters. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, all the places he went were within the Roman Empire so he would only have needed to speak Latin. He did have travelling companions, as are mentioned in his epistles: he also stayed with the Christian communities in those locations, as he mentioned in his letters. I'm sure someone with deeper knowledge of chapter and verse will be along later to give exact quotes. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by V85 (talk • contribs)

Most of Paul's journeys are described in detail in Acts of the Apostles, though additional details can be gleaned from his letters (see Pauline epistles). You can find a synopsis of these in Wikipedia starting at Paul the Apostle#First missionary journey. During this time, the missionary work of the early church was carried out in "pairs" of leaders, with a senior leader and a junior leader. There also may have been a retinue of supporters which may or may not have traveled with the two missionaries for parts of the journeys, but there were certainly times when Paul and his companion would have been traveling just as a pair. During his first journey, Paul was the junior member of the pair, with Barnabas as the leader, though Paul eventually assumes leadership of this journey. The group also includes at least John Mark for part of the journey, and I believe that others can be inferred. On the second journey, the same two (Paul and Barnabas) set off together, and meet up with John Mark and Silas in Antioch. Paul has fallings out with Barnabas and John Mark, so it is decided to essentially swap companions: Barnabas and John Mark leave in one direction and Pail and Silas in another. Paul and Silas pick up Timothy along the way; Timothy later becomes a major church leader in his own right. Priscilla and Aquila join late in his second journey, and also along the third. Except for his arrest and transport to Rome to stand trial as a Citizen of the Empire, Paul's journeys were all within the Eastern Roman Empire, of which he was a native (being from Tarsus), and everywhere he went outside of Palestine he would have spoken Greek to everyone, which would have been a first language for him, as well as for most of the people he was visiting with. In Palestine, aside from Greek many people would have spoken Aramaic; Paul also likely knew Aramaic well. --Jayron32 21:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm actually reading Acts right now, which is what inspired the question. My question is more about how Paul traveled (by horse, boat, walking, etc) than who he traveled with. I suspect we don't have evidence about Paul in particular, so it would be interesting to know about other Romans of his socioeconomic status and whether they could travel as extensively as he did. --Bowlhover (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

By "Latin," I am certain Tammy means Greek. Latin was never a lingua franca outside Italy in any meaningful sense. The upper classes and government officials would have been fluent, but Paul's audience (primarily, but not exclusively, common citizens and even slaves) would have been lucky if they could count to ten in Latin. It is likely that Paul spoke Aramaic; one would also expect him to know a good bit of liturgical Hebrew as well, assuming his claim to a Pharisaic background is to believed (though why he quotes the Septuagint so damn much if he can read Hebrew is beyond me). As far as the exaggeration question goes, you'd probably be interested in Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes you're right. I had in mind Paul's conversation with an official when he was going to be flogged, something along the lines of "I'm a Roman Citizen dontcha know" (civitas Romanis sum). --TammyMoet (talk) 12:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Civis Romanus sum. He would not have described himself as a state (civitas) and Romanis is the dative/ablative :) Surtsicna (talk) 13:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

"Romani, Ite Domum!" -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe that is Romanes eunt domus. μηδείς (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh well I only did Greek at school, for 2 years, took the exam and promptly forgot every single word, so I'm not surprised I got the Latin wrong.--TammyMoet (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Overland he would have likely walked, using donkeys or mules as pack animals. He definitely traveled by boat, as he was shipwrecked at least 3 times. I'm not sure horses were used often by anyone except the Roman aristocrats at the time (i.e. the Roman equestrian order and the military Cavalry they supported); Paul was a Roman Citizen, which likely means he was given freedom to travel anywhere in the Empire he wanted. The fact that he was a Citizen is why, after his arrest, he had the right to demand trial in the city of Rome itself. --Jayron32 23:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

See Roman Roads—Monuments to Ancient Engineering — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY

and Did You Know? — Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY, published by Jehovah's Witnesses.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:23, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Although I don't doubt the information (it seems unexceptional), does anyone have a more reliable source than Watchtower? --Bowlhover (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

This is all rather common and basic knowledge, I don't think you are going to find any source that contradicts what has been said. For a very readable history of the era, try Will Durant's Caesar and Christ. μηδείς (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The Romans are famous for their engineering skills, and the network of roads they built all across the empire made travel easier for rich and poor alike, creating a traveling class of traders, tourists, and health-seekers going to spas or shrines. Inns providing food, drink, lodging, and stables were dotted along the roads, and if need be, one could hire wagons or pack animals at certain places. See the wikiarticle Roman roads. You can easily find many books describing particular methods of private transport and travel by searching Google Books (for example this one or this one): but chances are that all but the very wealthy traveled on foot, or riding a mule or donkey. There was no public postal system as we know it; official messages were sent by the cursus publicus, but ordinary people relied on trusted friends or acquaintances going the right way to deliver letters. And of course, there were many merchant ships plying the Mediterranean who would also accommodate private travelers. So there is no need to think Paul exaggerated anything about his travels. Textorus (talk) 05:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Bowlhover -- see Apuleius' "Golden Ass" for some vivid accounts of travelling in the Roman empire... AnonMoos (talk) 07:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want some exaggeration, see the Acts of Paul and Thecla. And that is only an early Christian variation on a common theme of Greek novels, where starstruck lovers were separated ("by pirates") and travel all around the mediterranean, always just missing each other (and, of course, "fates worse than death") until they find each other (or God, in the case of Paul and Thecla) in the end. I can imagine the lurid four-colour covers of the scrolls ;-). But even if unrealistic, these novels attest to the fact that long-distance travel was a well-understood feature of the ancient world. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

U.S. Nuking Targets in Japan in 1945

Why did the United States nuke the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (full of civilian populations) during World War II instead of nuking Japanese military locations? Also, how much of a role/say did President Truman have in regards to determining which targets in Japan the U.S. should nuke in 1945? Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, the article about these nukings has some info on this. Also, this statement in the article about these nukings--"In preparation for dropping an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, US military leaders had decided against a demonstration bomb, and they also decided against a special leaflet warning, in both cases because of the uncertainty of a successful detonation, and the wish to maximize psychological shock."--makes me wonder: how much of a say did U.S. President Truman have (or was able to have) in not dropping these leaflet warnings and in not doing a test detonation beforehand? Futurist110 (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were targeted because they were industrial centres. I have no idea about President Truman's say in this. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The article Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki states that 'Hiroshima, an embarkation port and industrial center that was the site of a major military headquarters', and 'Hiroshima was a city of both industrial and military significance. A number of military camps were located nearby' i.e. it was a city that had strong ties to the Japanese military. V85 (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this info. Futurist110 (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The political decision making was largely devolved by the President to the Interim Committee. Target selection was done by by a committee that reported to George Marshall and secretary of war Stimson (see Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki#Choice of targets). Conant, head of the committee with overall charge of the Manhattan project, wrote to Curtis LeMay, who was in charge of the massive aerial bombardment of Japan, asking that these cities not be bombed (to maximise the before-vs-after differential); LeMay pointedly wrote back saying he would have "completed the strategic bombing of Japan" by the winter of 1945 (meaning that if they didn't get a move on with the A-bomb, he'd have already destroyed every city of note by Christmas). Stimson and Marshall were direct reports to the President, and Conant's demesne was so massive he was effectively too. Truman approved the plans presented to him by Stimson; had he wanted to change them he could have done. Rhodes' The Making of the Atomic Bomb is a good, detailed coverage of this entire process. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the info about this book. Futurist110 (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Our articles on this are the best we're going to do in response to this question, but the only thing I'd add to the really good answers above, is that Truman absolutely had the final say, and I remember hearing a story (perhaps untrue) that one of the first things after he was sworn in he was told was about the existence of the bomb. Also, as Finlay alludes to, Hiroshima was selected (there were backup targets too in case of cloud cover) because it was largely unaffected by previous bombing. Tokyo was absolutely decimated (much like Berlin and London) from conventional bombing. Shadowjams (talk) 21:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Just to be clear, in case you were using "decimated" in its formal sense, of reducing by one-tenth, down to 90%: our article says "Over 50% of Tokyo was destroyed by the end of World War II". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

So basically if Truman wanted to, he could have ordered leaflet warnings to be dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki beforehand and done a "practice" nuclear test somewhere outside of major Japanese civilian areas beforehand? Futurist110 (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

As a legal matter absolutely. As history has turned out I think Truman made the right decision, but that's my own opinion on what is the lesser of many evils. If japan's colonial instincts hadn't led them to bomb the U.S., and side with a stone cold psychopath named Hitler, they might be like Vietnam right now. Shadowjams (talk) 21:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

To clarify--on "the right decision," do you mean on nuking Japan, not distributing warning leaflets and doing a practice nuclear test beforehand, or all of these things? Futurist110 (talk) 21:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure. It's hard to see what could productively be written on such leaflets, however. Operation Meetinghouse killed around 100,000 people in Tokyo in a single night in March 1945. As that didn't break Japanese resolve, a leaflet warning that the US had a different way of dealing the same degree of devastation wasn't likely to either. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:46, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

The leaflets could have contained warnings about how the United States would throw an extremely powerful weapon on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and about how all civilians should flee from these cities immediately. Futurist110 (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Our article suggests strongly that no warning leaflets were dropped over Hiroshima. I find that curious, and possibly inaccurate... But Truman could have done any of that. He could have just invaded japan, and lost hundreds of thousands more, or could have just continuously firebombed japan's major cities, and killed thousands more. Japan bombed the U.S. first. The U.S., for all of europe's retardedness, stayed out for as long as it could. The notion that the U.S. has something to apologize for ending the most horrific war in modern history is absurd. Shadowjams (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

You probably ought to know that from looking at Japanese records, there is very little evidence that the atomic bombs were what made them decide to surrender when they did. The premier scholars on the issue, Tsuyoshi Hasegawa, has rather authoritatively concluded that it was the Soviet Union's entry into the Pacific War, not the atomic bombings, that made the difference. Whether you think the US's decision was proper or not given what they knew (it's an open question), one should not confuse the motivation to drop the bomb with the actual reasons that Japan surrendered. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Bullshito, as they say. Edison (talk) 00:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

So you're saying that Japan might have surrendered due to the U.S.S.R. declaring war on them, but that the U.S. did not know what was going on in the minds of the Japanese leadership until after it has already nuked Japan twice? Futurist110 (talk) 01:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

"Europe's retardedness" needs some explanation. Or withdrawal. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

So does that comment about 'they might be like Vietnam'. I actually don't understand it. It either comes from a person who has never visited either Japan or Vietnam and knows nothing about either Japan or Vietnam, or, on the other hand it comes from a person who has never visited either Japan or Vietnam and knows nothing about either Japan or Vietnam. Which one shall we choose? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:04, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Europe got into two major wars, among others. "retarded" doesn't need explanation. Shadowjams (talk) 00:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course, and the Americans have been in war after war after war (usually on easy targets - with outside help, which is nothing to be proud of, especially when you have President Friendly-Fire in command) ever since the British created America. The Americans even fought each other when they had nothing else to do (the only war they won). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 00:13, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

American history doesn't begin in 1946 or end in 1992. But your suggestion that we should act unilaterally and decisively, rather than collectively and altruistically, is appreciated. μηδείς (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm - I think the goings-on of Messrs Schickelgruber and Dzhugashvili might be described as "retarded" without causing undue offence. However, WWII was a walk in the park compared to the Great War, so "most horrific war in modern history" is the statement that calls for justification. Tevildo (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe you mean they were morally retarded. Whatever, but it's not a word I'm comfortable with using about humans, because it is hyper-loaded with meaning much of which can be so easily misinterpreted. It doesn't help, and it has a great potential to hinder. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Huh? "WWII was a walk in the park compared to the Great War, ..." 10 million died in WWI but 60 million died in WWII. Not a walk in the park comparison at all. Rmhermen (talk)

The primary target for the second raid was Kokura, a center for arms manufacturing: the raid diverted to to Nagasaki because of cloud cover. Acroterion (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Can we please keep this on track for the reference desk. If you want to bitch about the politics of it all, find a forum that is appropriate for it. --Onorem♠Dil 02:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

For Truman's role in the decision, the OP would do well to read volume 2 of Truman's Memoirs, available at libraries or on Amazon, as well as the definitive biography by David McCullough, both of which delve into the subject at more length and with greater nuance than is possible here on the Ref Desk. Of course, searching for "truman atomic bomb" on Google Books will turn up many, many other books which examine his role in the decision. Textorus (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Dowager consorts

Did the dowager imperial consorts and concubines (excluding empresses) of Qing and Ming emperors live in different quarters of the Forbidden City and what did they do with most of their widowed lives?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Nuclear targets in Germany

Had the United States come up with a list of targets in Germany to drop atomic bombs, should the war have continued past the point when the atomic bombs were ready to be delivered? RNealK (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, no. Even if the US had the atomic bomb ready to go, it was obvious for quite some time that Nazi Germany was headed for imminent collapse. They had enemies closing in on all sides, and no oceans to protect them from massive land invasions. Also, the average German soldier was far more willing to surrender, as were many of the generals. So, it simply wasn't necessary to resort to the atomic bomb. StuRat (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, yes. From Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki:

"Preliminary research began in 1939, originally in fear that the Nazi atomic bomb project would develop atomic weapons first. In May 1945, the defeat of Germany caused the focus to turn to use against Japan."

"The 509th Composite Group was constituted on 9 December 1944, and activated on 17 December 1944, at Wendover Army Air Field, Utah, commanded by Colonel Paul Tibbets. Tibbets was assigned to organize and command a combat group to develop the means of delivering an atomic weapon against targets in Germany and Japan. Because the flying squadrons of the group consisted of both bomber and transport aircraft, the group was designated as a "composite" rather than a "bombardment" unit."

OsmanRF34 (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

But the OP asked about a list of target cities in Germany, and that's something you do in the late stages of preparation, not right at the beginning. After all, it would be pointless to do so early on, as which cities were in Allied control, which were already totally destroyed, which had POW camps, and which were accessible to bombers would all be likely to change by the bombing date. StuRat (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the OP asked about if the US would come up with a list of target in Germany, if needed. And I still maintain that yes, the atomic bombs were not only for bombing Japan. If it had been the case, the US would have dropped a bomb in Germany too. There's nothing special about nuking the Japanese. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Read the question again, StuRat is right, the OP asked if there ever a list prepared in case the war was still on going when the bombs were ready, not if they would come up with a list if needed. However I don't agree with the rest of his comment. It seems easily possible they would have come up with a highly tentative list which may have been updated until it was clear it was no longer necessary, or perhaps just a few random thoughts on possibilities. OTOH this source [18] Japan was already the primary target in 1943, at least among those actually planning even if not among the builders and others. Nil Einne (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: nope, the OP didn't ask that. Indeed, "Had the US come up ..." is the same as "Would the US come up ..". It is not if the US had a list. "Had" can also be a conditional in English in some cases like this. In any case, the US was analyzing target to drop atomic bombs in Germany, as the rest of my answer implies. Obviously, that doesn't imply that the US had a 'to do' list with items on it like: nuke Berlin, nuke Munich, free Jewish people, napalm bomb Japan, .... OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Your meaning is unclear, Osman. It is quite obvious the OP was using the pluperfect "had come up", not a conditional. μηδείς (talk) 01:08, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Language#Correct_interpretation here for a discussion about my interpretation. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

An article in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists from 1995 says that fear of a German atom bomb motivated the US and Allied atom bomb project in 1942 on, and was used by Gen groves to justify highest priority for anything the project needed, at the cost of other war programs. The scientists, many Jewish and/or refugees from Hitler, were motivated to strike at Germany rather than Japan. But the delivery airplane chosen, the B29, was not intended for European use, and had the very long distance capability needed to strike Japan. By the fall of 1944, there was no US thought of using the bomb against Germany. There was some fear that if a dud were dropped on Germany, their atom bomb project might be able to gain rapid advances from it, though other intelligence said the German atom bomb project was lagging. (Such intelligence in wartime is too often deceptive, such as the Allied intel that the invasion of Europe would be at Dover rather than Normandy, and a sensible commander would have allowed for intel to be misinformation from double agents or turned agents). I couldn't find evidence that German atom bomb targets were selected and analyzed. Allied terror bombing of German and Japanese cities via imprecise night-time bombing was able to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians via firestorms etc using conventional means. Edison (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Military planners could have chosen a list if the bomb had been perfected in 1944 instead of after the Germans surrendered, or if the war had persisted due to a failed D-Day invasion. MI6 urged Churchill in mid-1944 to get Roosevelt to nuke Germany to counter the V2 strikes. MI6 may not have known how far behind schedule the bomb actually was. Alternative history military schemers provide lists of likely nuke targets in Germany if the bomb had been developed in time. [19], [20]. One problem with nuking Germany if the war had persisted past mid 1945 was the vast system of factories, military stores depots, V2 and jet plane assembly and launch points and troop barracks the Germans were building so far underground that WW2 nukes would have had little effect on them. Edison (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

May 12

Frederick, Hereditary Prince of Denmark

How was Frederick, Hereditary Prince of Denmark physically disabled or is never described in history?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Was he? When I feed the Danish Wikipedia version of his article through Google Translate, I find nothing to indicate he was injured or disabled in any way, and the statement in the English Wikipedia article has no source. Given that, I would slap a "cn" tag on it or remove it unless and until someone comes up with a source. --Jayron32 03:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

"Sound evidence for the existence of human differences in intelligence that parallel human differences in technology is lacking."

I'm reading Guns, Germs, and Steel, and in the preface Diamond states that "[s]ound evidence for the existence of human differences in intelligence that parallel human differences in technology is lacking." He supports this claim by 1) arguing that psychologists have been unable to convincingly establish that, say, whites are genetically more intelligent than blacks, and 2) appealing to his personal experience in Papua New Guinea.

Well, argument 2) is just anecdotal evidence, so I can't really take it seriously. As for 1), my understanding is that most psychologists acknowledge that the observed IQ disparity between blacks and whites is partly genetic in origin. I'll find a quote from the APA if you want. So given this, what is the current status of Diamond's claim? 65.92.6.9 (talk) 05:38, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I for one would appreciate the quote. My understanding from general browsing/ limited scholarly reading is that this debate is far from settled, and a claim about "most psychologists" should be qualified rather carefully. If you search Google scholar for "racial differences intelligence", you will find plenty to go on. IBE (talk) 07:31, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

After digging around, I realized that I strongly overstated the consensus of psychologists on this matter, and as you said the debate is still controversial. 65.92.6.9 (talk) 12:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

65.92.6.9 -- There are whole long convoluted articles History of the race and intelligence controversy and Race and intelligence if you feel like looking at them. I don't think that Diamond actually cared about "race" in the conventional sense too much; it was enough for his argument that plenty of high-intelligence people existed over time in all the main quasi-continental regions relevant to the thesis of his book (the Americas, Eurasia + North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, Australia + New Guinea etc.). In any case, conventional IQ tests do not have much validity when applied to people of strongly-diverging cultures (illiterate hunter-gatherers vs. modern city dwellers, etc.). AnonMoos (talk) 07:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue is not whether there are broad differences in human populations in the area of intelligence. There may be, though finding ways to test for this which take into account class, prejudice, and whatnot has proven to be pretty tricky. There is no a priori reason to assume that on average there aren't some slight differences (as there are with lots of genetic traits), though we also know that a huge, significant portion of actual observed intelligence has to do with development as well as the genetics, and since what we're talking about are development disparities, this quickly becomes a case of begging the question over and over again. But hey, it's not crazy to wonder if there aren't some differences between populations in this area, since it would be kind of strange if there weren't a few, since there are so many others.

But that's not really Diamond's argument. His argument is that there is no evidence that these small, population-based differences (that is, slight differences in the population averages or outliers) translates into the massive differences in technological aptitude. Another way to say this is, even if one wanted to believe that Native Americans (or New Guineans, or whomever) were, on average, 2% less smart as Europeans (something there isn't really any evidence of to my knowledge, but whatever), why would that translate into the major technological disparities? Keep in mind that every population is going to have dullards, geniuses, and "mostly average" people, and, again, that we're talking about tiny statistical differences for the population as a whole, not for individuals within the population. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Subspecies of homo sapiens

Are there any Scientific studies conducted by muslim scientists in (books or any sources) past or present which classified muslims and non muslims as separate Subspecies of Homo sapiens. I am not asking about religious views but scientific study like searching for genetic differences between muslims and non muslims and thereby claiming that muslims and non muslims are separate Subspecies of homo sapiens. Solomon7968 (talk) 07:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Given that Islam is one of the proselytizing religions, that one can convert to Islam simply by "sincerely" stating that "There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God", and that as a result the vast majority of Muslims are not Arab in origin, any serious research into this direction would be very surprising. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:45, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Solomon7968 -- Why would anyone think that made sense? In any case, sub-species status usually means a trinomial Linnean name (Felis silvestris lybica for the African wildcat as opposed to Felis silvestris silvestris for the European wildcat etc.), but such trinomial names are not generally currently used by scientists to refer to human races... AnonMoos (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I am asking of Pseudo-scientific research. Like I saw in a documentary of a artwork Hitler used to justify that Jews and aryans are different. I do not remember the exact details. But are there this type of scientific justifications of difference between muslims and non muslims. Solomon7968 (talk) 07:56, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure crackpots could believe almost anything (including polygenesis), but I'm not sure why a person even minimally in touch with historic reality would try to posit that Muslims are a sub-species... AnonMoos (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Unlike Islam, Judaism is not a religion spread by conversion, so the idea that many Jews may have common inherited characteristics is not wholly ridiculous. The idea that Muslims would is absurd, unless one a adopts some form of radical neo-Lamarkian model of inheritance according to which "Muslimness" could be passed on physically in some way. In the early 20th century the idea that different "races" were like subspecies was far more widespread (it was even argued that racially mixed couples had lower fertility, and were more likely to produce infertile children!), so the claim that one could identify differences between 'Semites' and 'Aryans' was not considered wholly beyond the bounds of scientific possibility. But that was long ago, and even in the 1930s such views were marginal. Paul B (talk) 08:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• Binomial nomenclature came in with Linnaeus in the 1700's. That's not a time when the Muslim world was known for scientific innovation or commentary on Western science. There are other terms like dhimmi, or kafir and the Dar al-Harb by which Muslims divide themselves from humanity as a whole. μηδείς (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, I am by the way not a Muslim (a Hindu from India) but your logic is very absurd. Infact in 1700 India held 25% of Global economy. And there was nothing called western science then (Even Newton's Gravitation was anticipated by Bhāskara II 500 years ago) It largely started by the Industrial Revolution. You are right Binomial nomenclature came in with Linnaeus but that was only a systemic study. Mankind has the basic knowledge of it since time immemorial. Solomon7968 (talk) 19:22, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

No, I do not excuse you. Name any important Indian evolutionary biologists of the 1700's you wish. Link to them, even. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Modern man is Homo sapiens sapiens (H. s. idaltu, the only other subspecies went extinct circa 160,000 years ago). Also, 'Muslim' is a religion, not a race. Did you mean 'Arabic'? However, not all Muslims are Arabic (Malaysia is majority Muslim), and not all Arabic-peoples are Muslims. Are you trying to characterise all the human races as different sub-species? CS Miller (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to know if such a Muslim Scientific point of view exists. I am no scholar or expert that is it. Solomon7968 (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

In that this would be incompatible with both science and Islam, as has been shown above, it would seem unlikely that such a point of view is widespread. It is of course possible that someone believes it. People can believe all sorts of nonsense... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Solomon7968 -- Linnaeus published from about 1735-1768, a time when western science was in fact strongly advancing (though not as professionalized and institutionalized as it would later become). There was relatively little advance in scientific knowledge in the Muslim mideast after the 13th century (Ibn Khaldun being the last strikingly-original and lastingly-influential non-theologian Arab intellectual for many centuries). The vast majority of Muslims were strikingly uninterested in European Christian societies until consistent European military victories started to change this, starting in the late 18th century. I don't know what Bhāskara did, but unless he explained both cannonball trajectories on earth and the orbits of the planets with a single unified mathematical equation, he did not rival Isaac Newton's work on gravity. AnonMoos (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Detail of history behind the Vilakithala Nair ?

Detail of history behind the Vilakithala Nair ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilakithalanair (talk • contribs) 09:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

We have an article at Velakkathala Nayar, but it's not very detailed. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

details of job description about the job of vilakithala nair / barber community in each country and religious base

Details of job description about the job of vilakithala nair / barber community in each country ( all world ) and in all religious base. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilakithalanair (talk • contribs) 10:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be a question. Even if it was a question, I'm not sure it would have a sensible answer. Just because a community worked mainly as barbers in the 19th century or whatever, doesn't mean their descendants still do so in the modern day. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

We have a brief (four lines) article on Velakkathala Nayar. The two references in this article may be of help. --178.191.52.193 (talk) 18:02, 12 May 2013 (UTC) Whoops, --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Jewish people not trying to gain new converts (contrary to Christians and Muslims)

How does it come that Jewish people do not try to gain new converts to their faith? Who, when and why took this decision? OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Not entirely true, see Proselytism#Judaism. Answering the question will also get into the problem of defining Judaism. For example, when Saul of Tarsus was converting people to Christianity he had competitors who tried to convince gentiles to follow the Torah, including undergoing circumcision. Was this Judaism that they preached? Judaism and Christianity was not so very distinct in the first century after Jesus. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:20, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

When one reads at Proselytism#Judaism that "Some groups, however, will encourage nonobservant Jews to be observant, such as Aish HaTorah or Chabad", is that really "trying to gain new converts"? Bus stop (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, no. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Here's an interesting read: [21] --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 22:51, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

See also: Calls for Increased Effort to Convert Non-Jews --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:01, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is all rather basic biblical "history". Jews are the descendants of Jacob. Their god made a special in Christian terms Old Covenant with them as his chosen people. There was no law passed by the Knesset deciding this. There are an endless number of illustrated children's bibles at Amazon, and must be at least one at a local library. The Apostle Paul was the one who came up with the idea of bringing the New Covenant to the gentiles. μηδείς (talk) 01:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Most powerful country in WW2

Which was the most powerful country, in terms of military power? Germany, USSR, US, Britain or Japan? --Yoglti (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)