Humanities desk
< May 6	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 8 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

regular currency sales

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Brontë sisters

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]