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 3

Engels' contribution to sociology

what were the contribution of Fredirich Engels to sociology field? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.59.13.192 (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like homework to me. Try here: Freidrich_Engels (I assume your spelling was a typo.) 196.214.78.114 (talk) 11:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As was yours. It's Friedrich, people. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It does sound a bit like homework, but to put you on track, the books that sociologists would most often cite would be The Condition of the Working Class in England and The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State. The name is Friedrich Engels, sometimes anglicised as Frederick Engels. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Don't know anything about Engels' contributions to the description of industrial society, but in anthropological speculation he followed many of the ideas of Lewis H. Morgan and similar figures, including the idea of an inevitable linear progression from "primitive promiscuity" or hetairism to matriarchy to patriarchy, etc... AnonMoos (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Grenade-resistant

Is there grenade resistant suit available? --Yoglti (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It depends on what kind of grenade you are talking about, and how close you are. Most grenade fatalities are believed to be caused by fragmentation, which may be stopped by standard modern body armor. However, the degree of body armor you would need to survive a fragmentation grenade would depend heavily on what type of grenade it is, and how far you are from the grenade when it goes off. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

To provide a reasonable protection against both offensive and defensive grenades, something like a bomb suit would be needed - preferable one that also has gloves and/or mittens. A less cumbersome option would be to induce someone else to fall on the grenade for you - with modern body armour such an act can be survivable. WegianWarrior (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

May I suggest the use of a Unmanned ground vehicle instead, or a tank if you must be present. Dmcq (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

... or you could invent one of these. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

May 4

Antonio Ferrante Gonzaga, Duke of Guastalla

How was he burned alive exactly?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

According to the Italian Wikipedia version (run through google translate) it appears he had been hunting on a cold, rainy day, and when he got back to the lodge, rubbed himself down with alcohol (perhaps as a linament, maybe he was sore?) and being cold, he moved close to the fire place. That unfortunate combination caused him to accidentally catch fire. Someone who actually speaks Italian may be able to get a better translation. --Jayron32 01:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Anti-Homosexual Novels

Are there any novels that express anti-homosexual sentiments? I mean fictional stories, novels, short stories, novellas, that kind of stuff. Sneazy (talk) 04:15, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

A google search for anti homosexual novels would be a good starting point. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 04:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

"Revolt of the Pedestrians" by David H. Keller is a semi-classic science-fiction short story which still retains some interest, despite being very "pulpy" and over eighty years old. However, it contains a rather strange anti-lesbian sub-plot based on the idea that lesbianism is not just a form of deviant sexuality (a pretty standard view in 1928), but is the deeply pathological manifestation of a very disturbed mind... AnonMoos (talk) 09:05, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I keep reading this, and I keep not understanding what is being asked. μηδείς (talk) 05:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You could always ask the OP for clarification, rather than just reporting your difficulty to AnonMoos. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:41, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Medieval shipyard

Was a medieval shipyard such that the construction of the ship was done high up on scaffolding and then rolled down into the sea, -OR- was the ship built in a large hole and that hole filled with water when the ship was done? Is there any pictures of such medieval shipyards where they did ship construction? LordGorval (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

This picture [1] indicates rolling down but I guess others might do it differently. Dmcq (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

The first picture in that series showing galleons being built has them surrounded by big banks of earth, I think that was for easy access and a sound base though. I'd have thought the problems if there was some rain and the hole was filled would be too much unless you were sure it wasn't going to rain for some months. In one case of building a dry dock I know of they had the area protected with a big bank of earth and used pumps to keep the place dry and an electric field between the pump holes in the bank to keep it in place, it was quite deep so not the same problem but that technology wasn't available in medieval times! Dmcq (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Just had a though, they could have used a canal lock type arrangement and built them above the water line that way, so I think it is worth your seeing if there was anything on those lines or something else I haven't thought of. Dmcq (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "medieval"? If you mean the usual thing (prior to 1450 AD), then there weren't very many large sailing ships. The largest ships, I believe, were Venetian galleys that sailed mainly in the Mediterranean Sea. Looie496 (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

• I mean between the year 1000 and 1400. Yes, I realize they were small sailing ships - but I would imagine merchant ships traveled the Mediterranean Sea in this time period. Yes? LordGorval (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I see at Roman shipyard of Stifone (Narni) they did what I said in effect, they had the river fill up the channel in which they built the ship and then the ship went downstream to the sea. Before Medieval times but seems a sensible way of doing larger ships and I think people did sometimes build galleys later to ram and sink pirates. For smaller ones the Norse for instance could pull their ships across land [2] rather than go around by sea! Dmcq (talk) 16:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Shipbuilding seems to be Wikipedia's article on this though it doesn't seem to answer your question. Dmcq (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Most medieval shipbuilding would have been on a slipway and launched from there. Trying to build a drydock would be much more involved than "digging a large hole", since nearly any hole near a navigable waterway would fill up with groundwater very quickly. Medieval Viking ships were certainly build on slipways. My (modern) copy of Architectura Navalis (1629) also seems to assume that every type of ship is launched from a slipway. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all the answers. I believe my question has been answered.LordGorval (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Intermarriage in Israel

I realize this question has the potential to be highly controversial, but I'm curious and can't find many sources that aren't blatantly biased.

This article about anthropology says that "over half the Jewish population in Israel believes that the marriage of a Jewish woman to an Arab man is equal to national treason". Our article on Arab citizens of Israel says the same, while this link claims that "75 percent of participants did not approve of apartment buildings being shared between Arabs and Jews".

Are these claims an accurate reflection of Jewish Israeli culture, or is there something that I, as an outsider, am missing? Is there a large divide between Haredim and secular Jews in terms of their opinions about intermarriage? I find it hard to believe that these attitudes would be the norm among well-educated citizens of a 21st century democracy. --128.112.25.104 (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Can we please try this again, but in a manner helpful to the OP?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Yup, the question IS highly controversial. Blueboar (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2013 (UTC) Why? HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC) I won't pretend to have no opinion on the matter, but please trust that I'm not trying to stir up a debate. There's enough of those on the Internet already. --128.112.25.104 (talk) 22:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC) See Deuteronomy 7:3, 4.—Wavelength (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC) I've read Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Kings, so I'm aware that the Bible prohibits intermarriage in no uncertain terms. Nevertheless I was under the impression that secular Jews don't take the Bible literally, even if they're religious at all, just like how most Christians don't stone women to death for adultery. --128.112.25.104 (talk) 00:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC) [The account of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery is not universally accepted as part of the original Bible. —Wavelength (talk) 03:23, 5 May 2013 (UTC)] They no doubt take over 73 years (and still going!) of fighting seriously. Anyways, stoning women to death for adultery and whatever is tantamount (since adultery would not actually approach treason in the USA) to (merely) saying adultery is “treason” are quite separate matters. Maybe you should just take a step back and realize that it is journalism based on haphazardly done studies the details of which (specific questions asked, protocols taken, etc.) have not even been disclosed. ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC) How much support is there for gay marriage among the Orthodox? It would offer an in-house alternative to those who Jewish men might otherwise consort with Arabs or seculars. On the other hand gay miscegenation might be seen as weakening Israel's enemies. And what about the rights of Stan? μηδείς (talk) 06:31, 5 May 2013 (UTC) Sorry, that was completely over my head. Was it supposed to be helpful, or just a joke? (I'm not criticizing you, just puzzled about what you're saying.) --Bowlhover (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC) The OP is overlooking one slight detail, in his rather smug remark about "well-educated citizens of a 21st century democracy": When an ethnic group's leaders have declared their intentions to destroy you, that tends to trump other considerations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC) As is par for the course with your contributions, that remark is (a) irrelevant to the question and (b) tendentious to the point of absurdity. --Viennese Waltz 14:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC) As is par for the course with your contributions, that remark attacks a responder while making no effort to actually answer the OP's question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:30, 6 May 2013 (UTC) I'm not coming here to answer the question, I'm coming here to register my opposition to your contribution. I could do that on your talk page, but I think you need to be called out on it at the place where you made it. --Viennese Waltz 14:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC) So you came here not to try to give the OP any useful information, but rather you came here specifically to attack another user. Way to go, VW. You continue to live down to expectations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Actually, I second Viennese Waltz here, if not happily. Your comment was not helpful, but a stupidly misleading platitude. As part of our educational mission, it is important to point these things out. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC) I notice he had nothing to say to Medeis (whose bizarre comment was pointed to on the talk page), nor did he criticize the other users who likewise gave no useful answers. So I figure that VW (and you, by inference) are initiating these attacks for strictly personal reasons, and you should know better than to do that. You also totally missed the point: Israel is constantly being told by the leaders of nearby Islamist nations that they are targets for destruction. But you're much less dumb than I am, so maybe you can explain to us why "well-educated citizens of a 21st century democracy" shouldn't put their personal and national safety above other considerations. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC) You seem to assume your own conclusions. Also, as far as I can tell you fail to differentiate between "islamist", "islamic", and "Arabic". And, apparently, you think the state Israel is plural, or you fail to differentiate between the state and its citizens. You also seem to fail to differentiate between Arabs and "people hostile to Israel" (ignoring the fact that a sizable minority of Israeli citizens are indeed Arab). Try to sort these things out first. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Before you continue your personal attacks on just me, how about you go to the talk page and address the question another user raised about another user's comment here that you don't seem to find troublesome (probably because I'm not the one who said it). ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:16, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Baseball Bugs, I'm not very familiar with the issue, but who are the leaders of Israeli Arabs that want Jews to be destroyed? Do most Israeli Arabs agree with that sentiment? The most likely Arab men to marry Jewish women are Israelis with moderate political and religious opinions; I highly doubt that many of them are Islamists from neighboring countries. --Bowlhover (talk) 21:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC) Bugs, please stop just for a minute and consider whether your view would be altered if the Arab in question were a Christian? There are a lot of Arab Christians in one of Israel's neighbouring countries, Lebanon. Indeed, it is perfectly possible to be both Arab and Jewish. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

We can provide sources; we cannot judge a source's validity for you. We cannot comment on the contents of your mind and what may be missing there. What you find hard to believe is not something we can help you with. Please seek an internet forum. μηδείς (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, following the links, the first source actually gets its data from the second source, the Ynetnews article here. The news site is operated by Yedioth Ahronoth, which is a tabloid newspaper in both senses of the word. So I would take the claims with a big grain of salt. Possibly the original posters scepticism is justified. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The Ynetnews website is a skimpy edition and rife with mistranslations into English, good only for quick updates if you don't read the better-written Haaretz English edition online. I strongly disagree, though, with disparaging Yedioth Aharonoth as a "tabloid": it's Israel's largest mainstream daily newspaper, quite comprehensive over a broad range of topics. If it leans towards populism, one might equally say that the more left-leaning Haaretz is narrower in its coverage and doesn't adequately reflect what's happening in the country. (I subscribe to the daily print editions of both, so am not biased.) --'Deborahjay (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You could track down and take a look at these and see if they point you in the right direction.

--some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The OP needs to strike his condescending remark about "well-educated citizens of a 21st century democracy". Israel is under constant attack and threat - and you all know from where. If there's a strong cultural reluctance to interact with people who "could be" the enemy, it's totally understandable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I read that remark not as condescending but as naive and woefully undeserved. Israel is not the sort of democracy ruled by the majority while protecting the rights of minorities. It doesn't have a Constitution. The party that forms the government after any election has never gotten even a simple majority of the votes; instead, coalitions are cobbled together of a cluster among the myriad small parties, with ministries (governmental departments, in AE) handed out to coalition partners who thus gain power and budgets far out of proportion to their share of the plebescite. The Haredi ("ultraorthodox") parties, representing a fundamentalist minority stream of Judaism, has frequently held the Interior Ministry and wielded enormous influence on matters of personal status: marriage and burial, to name two. This is why there is no civil marriage, although marriages performed abroad are recognized as legal. (They also have imposed strict Orthodox observance of the Sabbath that restricts public transportation and commerce for the majority: secular Jews and all non-Jews.) The education system (public and private) is almost entirely segregated, such that religious and secular Jews don't send their children to the same schools, let alone Arabs (of any religion) and Jews. Almost all residential neighborhoods and communities are likewise segregated. Don't forget the language barrier: although Arabic is an official language of the country, it isn't mandatory for Jews to learn it (although the Arabic school curriculum includes Hebrew; both learn English). The Haredi school system, by the way, promotes religious study and avoids teaching secular subjects such as English, math, and history, so hardly up to 21st C. standards.

Underlying this, kindly recall: Israel as a sovereign state has only been in existence 65 years, approx. 3 generations. Both the Jewish and local Arab populations on the whole have their mutually exclusive identities, and each has historical and current reasons to feel threatened by -- or fear the risk of destruction at the hands of -- the other. The likelihood of intermarriage in these circumstances is extremely marginal, and the situation I've described here is likely to continue even with the new government that excluded the Haredi parties from the coalition. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Good answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Breton duke

Who was the last duke of Brittany to speak Breton (not Gallo)? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't Brittany a county? Should you ask, who was the last comte to speak Breton?
Sleigh (talk) 06:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

If Brittany wasn't a duchy, why do we have an article titled "Duchy of Brittany"? Gabbe (talk) 08:14, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

This book says "Apart from the colloquial Breton that she spoke with her nurse, Anne, like all upper-class Bretons, was fluent in formal" - so Anne of Brittany for sure. That leaves Claude of France (likely, for similar reasons?), Henry II of France (unlikely) and Louis, Dauphin of France, Duke of Burgundy (even less likely) to investigate. 174.88.10.231 (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't fluent in formal mean fluent in French?
Sleigh (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, especially since that book says "fluent in formal French", specifically. But do we know how different 15th/16th century Gallo was from 15th/16th French? Adam Bishop (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

May 5

open university?

Would I be allowed to apply for a course at the Open University whilst also taking a different course at another university at the same time? Also, how would this work regarding student loan funding, since both have different costs, would I apply for a loan to cover the more expensive of the two?

213.104.128.16 (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean by allowed? ... I don't think anyone could stop you from taking an Open University course, if you wanted to take one. The real question is whether you would receive any course credit (towards a degree) for the Open University course at your primary university. That would be up to the university. Blueboar (talk) 17:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I mean, as in separate credit towards two different degrees at the same time, from different institutions, are there no restrictions there? 213.104.128.16 (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Who would be imposing such a restriction? Does any university say that if you study at another institution at the same time, you get no credit for your achievements at the university? I very much doubt it. How could it possibly be policed? And why would they care? Whatever you do outside the uni is your own private affair, and that includes being involved with some other educational institution. Their whole ethos is about support for learning, not about creating stupid and arbitrary disincentives. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

As for the loan, it would be in your best interest to contact the Student Loans Company directly. OU courses do qualify for funding as of this year but undertaking two courses at two separate institutions at the same time seems to be quite rare. Nanonic (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised and shocked if you had any kind of problem with either the loan or enrollment by either institution, but again there's only 2 organizations that can answer that definitively. It's a free world after all you may do what you please . . . but its a free world if one institution chooses not to accept the other's course credit or loan, no opinion here its pretty much a yes or no by the interested parties. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue of the loan is a bit complex, as Student Loans in the UK are provided by the Government and then repaid once the candidate has finished a course is earning a certain minimum income. Usually this will cover up to 16 years of courses, paid to either the candidate or institution in installments. If you switch courses or universities, it gets a bit involved as part payment will have been made already on the original course. To be taking two courses at once isn't a usual state of affairs and may need to be topped up with a private loan as the government may see it as excessive. Especially if the candidate applies for the maintenance loans and grants (which help with the cost of living at university) twice. Nanonic (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I can see 3 potential obstacles. 1) The student finance rules don't envisage this situation. Contact them, but it is quite possible that they will refuse to give you two loans at once. You haven't said whether you would be studying full or part time at your other university; that could be crucial. Also consult the regulations in your main university. They could exclude taking substantial part-time courses elsewhere, because that would prevent you giving adequate time and attention to your main course. Finally, consult the OU regulations. One thing you might consider is to intercalate from your man course and take the OU course then. Then you possibly could claim the OU CATS points to your main degree, but it wouldn't be automatic. Or just drop out and finish your degree at the OU.,all these need lots of thought. Itsmejudith (talk) 06:06, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

US federal legislation vs. state legislation

G'day. Does a state legislature in the U.S. pass more laws than Congress, and are such bills more often vetoed by a governor than by the president? Recently I read that Jerry Brown signed more than 10,000 bills into law during ten years as governor of California (two terms served 1975-1983). That is more than any president in history, even in times when many laws were passed in the 20th century. And I heard that Ronald Reagan (in his National Convention speech 1984) vetoed more than 900 bills only in fiscal terms while serving as Governor of California. As I pick Ronald Reagen as exemple, he served eight years as governor and eight years as president, may it be that he signed and vetoed a lot more laws in the governorship as in the presidency? Are state legislatures more active than congress? Or does that vary from state to state and only larger states such as California pass so many laws? --85.176.224.153 (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd be curious to know the source you originally read. This is an easily gameable statistic. Structure matters a lot. For instance, omnibus budget bills could constitute thousands of provisions, but if they're passed as one bill that would count for one. Similarly, do Federal Regulations (published in the CFR) count? How about private laws? If it's a simple question of how many times the executive signed his/her name to a "bill" (as the term's understood under the appropriate constitution) then you could count the Statutes at Large for the term you're interested, and the state equivalent. That seems tedious, and not particularly instructive to me.

If it's not just a numbers question though, as for who's more "active", that seems to be a qualitative question that's almost impossible to answer. Shadowjams (talk) 19:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Also keep in mind not every U.S. President had the Line-item veto so that will skew results (presidents before were more cautious NOT to veto a bill because of its "riders", but Presidents with LIV partially veto lots of stuff). Also the differences between state statutes on how their bills become laws differ immensely in some situations, add to that both Presidents and Governors having friendly legislators or one house of the bi-cameral legislatures vetoing a bill by the opposition controlled other house and basically doing the dirty work for the governor or president before it even reaches his desk. The proverbial "Passed by the House, killed in committee in the Senate" etc.

Long answer, short I am sure you could put together some accurate numbers for the Federal Government and some of the larger states but why, its really apples and oranges comparing them or even comparing presidents, take for instance Clinton had a hostile opposition controlled Congress for 6 years, and Reagan an opposition House for 8 (Congress for 2), yet George W. who although capable was not the status of either Clinton nor Reagan I think we can all agree, had a very friendly Congress for 6 years, thus George W. would "seem" better than Clinton and Reagan not because he was, just because he lucked into a very agreeable Congress for the vast majority of his presidency, likewise for Governors or for comparing state vs. state. In short although good for trivia it really doesn't mean anything, and its why most political pundits really don't spend much energy on detailed comparisons other than to score some cheap temporary point. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 06:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Marketdiamond seems a little confused on this issue. As the article Line-item veto in the United States makes clear, only Bill Clinton had a line-item veto power, and only for a short time. No other president before or since has had the option. Textorus (talk) 10:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting Textorus, I keep hearing news blurbs about it so I had assumed others had it as well, then again I don't put in assumptions to my posts usually and did not do so here, just raising the point without any details, though my pural syntax was overreach. As you can see by word count IMHO the other points are much more relevant than LIV's effect alone, but did learn something interesting, thanks. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Photograph of a 19th-century Bosnian woman

?

The woman on this photograph is supposed to be Umihana Čuvidina, a Bosnian poet. However, I find it somewhat unlikely that she is the actual subject, given that she was born in 1794. The earliest known photograph of Queen Victoria was taken in c. 1845 - by that time, Čuvidina was over 50. Surtsicna (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure that's a photo? The resolution is so poor that I can't whether it might be a painting -- and in a quick web search I couldn't spot anything with higher resolution. Looie496 (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks nothing like early 19th-century paintings I've seen. For a start, it is black-and-white. Surtsicna (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

But it could be a monochrome photo of a painting. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I suppose you are right. It could be. The new question is: is it a monochrome photograph of a painting? I very much doubt it, but it is a possibility. If not, can it be a photograph of Čuvidina? Surtsicna (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Radio Sarajevo says it's a daguerreotype that is believed to be of her. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't it fairly common for old portrait photos to be "touched up" by artists? So maybe she was 50 but the artists were particularly generous to the age of the subject, just like photoshop, smoothing out wrinkles and the like. Vespine (talk) 03:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Not all women over 50 are all that wrinkly, and this image is of quite low quality. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This is clearly a photograph, not a b+w reproduction of a painting. It looks nothing like the paintings of that era. I'd say it's it's unlikely to be earlier than the 1840s. It looks like a calotype or daguerrotype. Paul B (talk) 10:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Earliest-born known human to be photographed

This is inspired by Surtsicna's question. History of photography shows us a photo of the Boulevarde du Temple, taken in 1838, which is the first photo of human beings. But they're unidentified, and even if we knew who they were, they wouldn't necessarily answer my question, which is in two parts:

Who is the earliest-born identifiable person to have been in a photo, and when were they born? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

And if that person is not notable, who is the first notable such person? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Seems like the photographers themselves, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:1839_photographs. Although Nicéphore Niépce made the first photograph in the world of an engraving of Pope Pius VII in 1822 which was later destroyed in the attempt to recreate it.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

It's Robert Cornelius according to http://petapixel.com/2012/11/15/the-first-hoax-photograph-ever-shot/ . He was born in 1809.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not sure those are what I'm after. The key here is not the date of the photo, but the date of birth of the subject. There could have been photos taken after 1839, of people born well before Cornelius. Also, a photo of an engraving or a portrait, or even a cadaver, is not what I'm after. I'm after a photo of a living person. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course he isn't it, but I believe the first U.S. President photographed was Andrew Jackson who was born March 15, 1767, so that would give you a baseline to work from. --Jayron32 01:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Van Buren and Jackson are getting much closer to the ballpark. I suppose there's a natural limit; if the earliest photo of humans was in 1838, then it would be hard to imagine anyone born before 1738 getting themselves photoed. At the moment, we're looking for a birth in the period 1738-1767, and probably closer to the later date. I'm actually surprised this hasn't been nailed down for a Wikipedia article already. Maybe it's there somewhere, but I couldn't find it. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A random search for a daguerreotype of a really old guy produced Martin Routh born 1755.--Melburnian (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Wow, he was born just 5 years after Bach died and the year before Mozart was born. Fantastic. Any earlier takers? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:42, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This site mentions Dr Ezra Green (born 1746) as a contender, together with other possibilities.--Melburnian (talk) 03:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

This question was discussed on the German WP back in 2006. Our results can be found here. --Wrongfilter (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Google Translate German -> English hasn't been working for me lately ("server failure" keeps coming up), but I get the general gist, which seems to accord pretty much with Melburnian's results. Danke. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's nothing personal Jack, I get the same message. Alansplodge (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The last link in the German discussion hints at a fotostream with eight early photographs, including one of Baltus Stone, b 1744. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks one and all. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:43, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

May 6

Alien abduction insurance

What proof the insurance companies want to show that a claimant have been abducted by extraterrestrials? --Yoglti (talk) 07:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You should buy a plan and then show us the paperwork. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

A signed confession by the extraterrestrials? Dbfirs 08:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, apparently. According to this blog the requirements for a valid claim include a signed statement from an alien, as well as photographs of the inside of an alien ship and/or alien biological material. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:20, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Supposedly a London-based firm has issued policies,[3] but I'm not convinced it isn't a joke as the company's name is Goodfellow Rebecca Ingram Pearson. You've got to get a GRIP, you see. Anyway, if you can track them down, why don't you ask them? Clarityfiend (talk) 10:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

If someone fakes ones own abduction, constructs a lab interior and make alien suits with humans inside, how will the insurance company know the documents are man-made or extraterrestrial? --Yoglti (talk) 10:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sure that I read this in the 27,000 pages of the Affordable Care Act, no American will be denied coverage for pre-existing condition of alien abduction again . . . if memory serves it was on the same page as the free birth control! ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 10:50, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

"NEWS | Insurer Stops Issuing Policies on Abductions by Space Aliens | April 3, 1997 | Associated Press | The company that insured the 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult against abduction by aliens said it stopped writing alien-related policies after the group's mass suicide. The cult members paid $1,000 on Oct 10 for a policy that covered up to 50 members and would pay out $1 million a person for abduction, impregnation or death caused by aliens."[4] So rather historical then. It seems that GRIP was an underwriting agency (in other words, they persuade Lloyd's of London underwriters and small insurers who specialise in the out-of-the-ordinary to carry the risk and earn a commission by doing it), rather than an actual insurance company.[5] The years around the turn of the millennium were ones of rapid mergers and acquisitions on the London Market, so I'd be rather surprised if they still exist. To answer the original question, it seems that claimants were required to "pass a lie-detector test, and provide video footage or a third-party witness."[6] In this article, GRIP's managing director called his "alien abduction" customers "feeble minded". Alansplodge (talk) 15:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Global Employment in Automotive Driving?

Are there any estimates for the number of people employed as drivers in the US, UK or preferably globally? This would include all taxi drivers, bus drivers, UPS delivery men, private limo, etc. --CGPGrey (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

To clarify your requirements, would this exclude those for whom driving is an essential element but not the main purpose of their jobs, such as travelling sales representatives, Mobile/cell phone antenna riggers/repairers, etc. (The latter is my Company's principal activity). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 5.66.241.41 (talk) 13:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Link between watching porn and sexual violence

Has there been any study on whether watching pornography causes persons with impressionable minds to commit crimes of sexual violence against women and children? -124.125.31.129 (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

You may find Wikipedia's article on this helpful at Social effects of pornography and also these articles here and here. One must also take into account cultural, socio-economic, racial and regional differences not to mention all forms of sexual orientation and under a Google search there are studies just for Japan, Europe etc. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 11:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not be an area for simple study. We can't do a double blind test where one group of subjects is force-fed porn, and then watched to see if they become sexually violent. It all has to happen in reverse. People who are found to be sexually violent are investigated to see if is they consume abnormally large amounts of porn. But that's a pretty subjective measure anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 11:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

There's also a correlation does not imply causation and/or post hoc ergo propter hoc problem. Even if people who are sexually violent view more pornography (and I have no idea if that is true. It may not be, but lets concede the point just to make a further point), it doesn't mean that the pornography caused the sexual violence. For example, they may have some predisposition to sexual violence caused by something else entirely, and that predisposition may also lead them to view more pornography. That would mean that even if the person in question had no access to any pornography, they may have been just as sexually violent. There would also need to studies done regarding a negative correlation: that non-sexually violent people view less pornography. The fact that sexually violent people had viewed pornography doesn't mean anything. I'm pretty sure most of them drank milk as children as well; that doesn't mean that milk causes sexual violence. --Jayron32 14:23, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Or more generally, obesity is caused by food, so we should ban food. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Also related is the Dihydrogen monoxide hoax effect, just because there are a ton of facts supporting a conclusion doesn't mean water is out to kill you today. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Yup. Water is essential to life, and can also kill us. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

The subtle distinction being that porn (unlike water or food) is arguably not essential to life. Gabbe (talk) 07:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Not strictly on the topic, but you might be interested in this YouTube video, or in the Video game controversy. The YouTube video is only about violence rather than pornography, but the two debates always come up together, even if they don't necessarily go hand-in-hand scientifically speaking. IBE (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

See the United States Department of Justice, Final Report: Attorney General's Commission on Pornography (Washington: United States Government Printing Office, 1986), part 4, chapter 3, and the bibliography at part 5, chapter 1, section D. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:36, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Loads of studies and a lot of hot air and some rather complex results. As far as I can see it may cause people to view rape as not so criminal - but overall the effect is good as far as such crimes are concerned because people who do feel that way can very often turn to pornography as a substitute. So definitely not a no brainer type of problem. Dmcq (talk) 01:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

What is obvious is the fact that the vast majority of people who watch porn are not sexually violent. HiLo48 (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

That may be obvious, but what is confusing is why someone would preferentially name non-men and non-animals as the victims of pornography readers? Are only children and women sympathetic enough? μηδείς (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Great point μηδείς, as I answered in my first reply sexual orientation may have different results along with regional, cultural and other differences. And by sexual orientation that would include women that prey on boys, men that prey on other men, women who prey on women and all possible variables. The OP specifically asked its effect on women and children so I think we are all answering that, but a better question really is neutral as far as any victim profile. ^{Market St.⧏} _{⧐ Diamond Way} 04:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Either that or an intentionally emotion-manipulating meme is being used without stated purpose, as I tried to demonstrate in my answer to the supposedly unbiased semitic endogamy question. μηδείς (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Pokemon Species by Popularity

Remove duplicate question - see WP:RD/E.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hey, all! So we all know that there are many (649) species of pokemon. In order of popularity, what would be, say, the top 20? For example, can someone find an official list, or perhaps see which one has the most hits on Google (the latter method may be inaccurate, and besides, there are 649 to look up...)? I ask because I can't find out for myself, due to my restricted network only allowing Wikipedia access (it's not here, either. Perhaps someone can create a list of this sort?). Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.79.50.132 (talk) 18:00, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

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.[7] 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. [8] 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 [9]. 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: [10]. 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: [11]. Edison (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

President Harrison attended a game between the Washington Senators and the Philadelphia Phillies, June 25 1892: [12]. It was probably at Boundary Field, just outside DC. The Phillies won 9-2.[13]. 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. [14]. It went into extra innings: [15]. The Cincinnatti Reds beat the Senator 7-4 in 11 innings, at Washington.[16]. 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)

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)

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)

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)