Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 July 6

= July 6 =

Jules Dumont d'Urville in Manga Reva
When was Jules Dumont d'Urville, Jacques Marescot du Thilleul, and his crew of the Astrolabe on the island of Mangareva (Manga Reva) in the Gambier Islands? Exact dates if possible. I'm trying to date when these sketches were made which was when they were on the island. It seems to be somewhere around August 1838.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You are right. The book is set up with the dates in the margins; 1838 is the year for Chapters XXI to XXIII, which recount their stay at Mangareva and août means August. The two ships Astrolabe and Zélée arrived on Aug 2 at night at Aka-Marou/Wainwright island. They left on Aug 15 from Manga Reva. 184.147.138.101 (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it known yet what will be the last state to perform its first same sex marriage?
I think a state can say that they will start doing SSMs as soon as they can change their own laws or print forms that say husband and husband or abrogate their constitutional amendment or something like that. And some states have part time legislators, with a months long vacation. After that they might have to waiting periods. Have they all set timetables for their first SSM yet? A state can't gay marry a person if there's no provision for it in the state's laws, right?

If a state not in the four sued wanted to drag this out as long as possible could it make excuse(s) until they lose all credibility and then at least one gay couple in each state would have to sue each state in federal court to force them to write gay marriage laws or something? And if the legislature somehow still refuses what are they going to do? Cut off their funding? Can Congress change the law for the state if their legislature feels like they're defending God by refusing? What if our Republican Congress doesn't want to do anything about it? What if Bush was president and the Republicans were in power when the Supreme Court decided so nobody wanted to do anything about it? The Supreme Court can't really do anything, they're just 9 people. (If a marriage clerk refuses to follow his state they can threaten to fire him or find someone in the state who will (by emergency training of new marriage clerks if necessary). But if the state doesn't want to marry gays and the state is the only thing that can marry people then what could be done if the Congress and President are anti-gay marriage enough?) Who will win, people who think they're sinning if they don't or people who realize what a horrible third world country-like precedent that'd be setting for the rule of law in America?

Has a government ever tried to do anything like this against a Supreme Court decision (besides segregation)? They could at least grant marriage licenses with a 10000 year waiting period on gay marriages only and then wait to be sued again, right? I'm not sure if the Supreme Court decision specifically addressed that. (Sorry if my writing sounds like a Michael Bay movie (if Michael Bay was a lawyer)). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, Michael Bay edits for people with short attention spans. Ten quick cuts per explosion. To be like him, you'd need a paragraph for each of your fourteen questions. This is more like Alexander Sokurov. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of his very over the top scenarios like the Rock, Armegeddon, The Purge and The Purge:Anarchy. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you may be right. I didn't really read the scenario, just skipped to the end and counted the question marks. Not to be rude, but blocks of text simply aren't appropriate for general audiences, even with parental guidance. (Which state will be last to give equality to incestuous gays?) I'm not saying cut anything, but some line breaks would be nice.
 * Anyway, not trying to hijack the question, just saying. I'll let those who sat through it say the rest. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you like the OP's questions? Do you like them here or there? Do you like them in a house? Do you like them with a mouse? Do you like them in a box? Do you like them with a fox? Do you like them with a goat? Do you like them in a boat? Do you like them on a train? Do you like them in the rain? Do you like them in the park? Do you like them in the dark? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I like it better now, Sam. Thanks for the line breaks, Sag! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Where did I say anything about incest? And you know what a local government did when the Supreme Court said school segregation is unconstitutional? They just stopped running schools at all for a year or two and subsidized private schools (or the white parents?) so even poor white kids had school and blacks had no school at all. Most of them dragged their feet for years or only had token integration for the next 20 years and the Supreme Court kept having to give stronger judgements. I've hardly stepped foot in a red state much less lived there so I don't know where realisticness stops. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't mention gay incest, I did. In the "parental guidance" pipelink. It's a Sokurov film. Not the clearest statement. Did I say something about segregation, or was that you? InedibleHulk (talk) 04:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to show how crazy US conservatives can get when the Supreme Court declares something they really like unconstitutional. Florida declared it null and void (the governor sided with the rule of law, though). Prince Edward County closed its entire school system from 1959 to 1964 in a Virginia-wide campaign called Massive Resistance. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Wacky bastards. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well some counties in some states had already stopped issuing all marriage licences even before Obergefell. Edit: Forgot to mention, however since Obergefell reaffirmed the Loving v. Virginia inding that marriage is a fundamental right, this doesn't seem to be even a medium term solution. Heck even short term I'm not sure if it'll do much. One reason it seemed to come about before Obergefell wasn't just because of reluctance to perform same sex marriage, but due to a lack of clarity of whether or not they should be doing so. Nil Einne (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have a list of states which have not yet performed a same-sex marriage, then the answer to your overall question will likely be "one of those." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * From the Caitlyn Jenner discussion I gather that a-to-b transsexuals are (post transition) considered to have been gender b from birth. So if a couple enters an opposite-sex marriage and then one member transitions, that means it was really a same-sex marriage from the very beginning.  That probably means all states have done SSM's by now, even if they are still on the books as OSM's.  But it would be very hard to document this. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's true. Even if you accept that particular fiction (I don't, Kris Jenner is not a lesbian, she married a man when she married Bruce) that would only make it a same-gender marriage, not a same-sex marriage. - Lindert (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The notion that a woman who marries another woman is necessarily a lesbian, is not supported by the language. It's called "same sex" marriage, not "same sexual orientation" marriage. Many gay people have entered into traditional opposite sex marriages.  (Isn't that so, WH Auden, Elton John, Oscar Wilde, Peter Tchaikovsky, Rock Hudson and Natacha Rambova?) I wonder what the reverse of lavender marriage is called.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not say anything about Bruce's sexual orientation, what I said has nothing to do with "same sexual orientation" marriage. My point was that Kris is not sexually attracted to women, and therefore she wouldn't have married Bruce if he had been woman at that time. And yes, many same-sex attracted people have indeed married the opposite sex, but the reverse I'd say is extremely unlikely/uncommon. - Lindert (talk) 08:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say that if the state considers the spouses opposite sex but won't marry people born the same sex then that is just a footnote. It probably just begrudgingly marries a guy and a guy with a penis after he produces proof that he was born a female (birth certificate, state ID etc.). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * At a state level in the US, I strongly suspect there is no state where there hasn't been at least one marriage licence issued to a same sex couple even a the time of your post.
 * One thing to understand is even before Obergefell, many states already had had some licences, particularly after Windsor. If you take a read of Same-sex marriage in the United States and the old version [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States&diff=668764722&oldid=668764588#State_law], 35 states seem to have had same sex marriages before Obergefell. 3 more Same-sex marriage in Kansas, Same-sex marriage in Missouri, Same-sex marriage in Alabama had some licences. In fact, it seems to me from the respective articles that Same-sex marriage in Texas, Same-sex marriage in Arkansas and Same-sex marriage in Michigan also had some licences before Obergefell.
 * The ones which hadn't issued licences before Obergefell are probably Same-sex marriage in Mississippi, Same-sex marriage in South Dakota, LGBT rights in Nebraska, Same-sex marriage in Georgia (U.S. state), Same-sex marriage in Kentucky, Same-sex marriage in Louisiana, Same-sex marriage in North Dakota, Same-sex marriage in Ohio, Same-sex marriage in Tennessee. (At least none of these articles mentioned licences before Obergefell.)
 * But while the response of the states have varied, generally the biggest roadblock that seems to have been put in place is waiting for a lower court to remove a stay (or similar), they need to study the decision or otherwise dragging their feet. But by now, most of the time stuff has happened. Some also said that the decision is the ultimate evil (or whatever) and they will support anyone who refuses to issue a licence. But while that's a problem, as I'll mention later this probably doesn't happen entirely state wide.
 * The thing is, even if marriages are partially regulated at a state level, the licences themselves aren't normally issued by the top level politicians. They are instead usually issued by clerks or judges or something like that. And even in the state with the most opposition, there tends to be people and areas where there is less opposition. It becomes clear if you read the articles (and also the news reports from around the time) that it isn't uncommon some of these people have taken whatever opportunity they feel they can, sometimes even based on decisions before Obergefell, opening on Saturday etc.
 * So I wouldn't be surprised if all states had issued licences by the end of the day of the ruling, no matter whether the Attorney General or Governor or whatever had said they should wait.
 * Probably the only remaining thing to consider are waiting periods. Some states have a waiting period between issuing a licence and the marriage being performed. But from sources at the time, it was also clear that some people were willing to waive such waiting periods if the law allowed them for same sex couples on the day of the ruling. If there was any state which hadn't yet issued licences before Obergefell, where the waiting period couldn't be waived, then perhaps they had no same sex marriages on the day of the ruling. But I don't know if any state has a unwaivable waiting period so long that they wouldn't have performed a same sex marriage by the time of your question.
 * Notably, Kansas seems one of the biggest holdouts in recognision same sex marriages, but as mentioned earlier, they already had issued licences even before Obergefell. (Other states may also resist properly recognising same sex marriages. This may be problematic, but is distinct from refusing to allow such marriages.)
 * P.S. This isn't to say that same sex couples wanting to marry aren't facing problems. Obviously if you're a same sex couple in some ultra conservative rural area of whatever state, where the clerk or whoeever is going to refuse to issue a licence, and will be supported by the state government, you're liable to be as angry as a "interracial" couple or whatever facing the same problems, and the fact that other parts of your state which you may live a distance from are better may be of limited comfort. But the question was about the "last state" which only requires one licence.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

shortsightedness
Shortsightedness runs through the genes of my family. Therefore I would like a spouse that is farsighted to avoid passing on my deficiency to my offspring. However, to avoid being rude, I aim to propose to my future spouse in a less direct way. Are there any sports or other hobbies/activities which require farsightedness? 2.96.211.17 (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Probably not, as wearing contact lenses is always a possibility when glasses are inconvenient. Except when swimming. Swimming with contact lenses is a very bad idea, so people don't do that. I find it strange though that you're looking for a spouse like you're looking for a broodmare. Isn't love the most important thing in a marriage? — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll avoid the temptation to editorialize; I will note though that says that two loci (I think - maybe more because I didn't go through the data carefully) have 'risk alleles' with effects in opposite directions on myopia and hyperopia.  (I had been curious because I could picture that both conditions could have many of the same genes for 'refractive error')  So the OP's genetic notion has at least a little basis in reality.  I wonder if 23andme ever ran a dating service... :) Wnt (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This question really ought to be on the science desk. I'm not sure your grasp of genetics is scientific - I don't think 'minus' genes balance 'plus' ones. If having children with good vision is so important to you, your best genetic lottery option would be to find a mate who has perfect vision. Your way, your offspring are likely to be some % mix of short and long sighted. --Dweller (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Some genes do work like that. For example, one tall parent and one short is likely, but not guaranteed, to produce offspring between them in size (with adjustments for male versus female heights).  Other genes don't work that way, like eye color (we would all have an eye color that looks like what you get when you mix all colors together by now if it did !).  Also note that nearsightedness frequently occurs early in life, and farsightedness often later, so it's possible to have both, at different ages (my brother is an example of this). StuRat (talk) 16:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

To answer the actual explicit question of your post, no there are no practical activities or pastimes which require an inability to focus properly at short range (which is essentially what you are asking). There certainly are activities which require a person to be able to focus on distant points, but this not the same thing; a person can be perfectly capable of focusing at a distance without being at a disadvantage in focusing on closer points, so you are equating an ability with a disability.

But more to the point, there are numerous reasons why your breeding strategy is unlikely to gain you the result you are looking for. For starters, although there is a bit of disagreement amongst researchers as to which is the more potent influence, both myopia and hyperopia are the result of a complicated interplay of genetics and environment, with the latter being further divided into broader physiological effects (diet, general health) and the manner of exercise to which one puts their eyes, which can have a significant effect on the degree to which genetic propensity for near and farsightedness manifests. Next, to the degree that these conditions are genetic, they involve multiple structures of the eye, governed by multiple genes, so this is not a matter of a simple two-way spectrum with those showing refractive error at one end expected to have strength at the other. Third, some of the implicated genes are recessive, meaning that even if your (oh so lucky) wife-to-be didn't exhibit signs of myopia, she may very well still be capable of passing the trait along, just as you are, regardless of the focal spectrum she herself has manifested. Lastly, even her own vision might change over the course of her life, as might yours and that of your children.

If you insist on approaching your choice of partner like you are a character from Gattaca, the best advice that can be offered to you (in specific regard to this trait) is simply to choose a mate who is in generally good health, who has good overall vision and does not tend towards myopia, has no significant history of myopia in her immediate heredity, and then make sure that your children receive a good diet, are in generally good health and that they regularly exercise their vision at a distance (though not to the full exclusion of closer usage, lest you tempt fate in the other direction). But even exercising this extreme level of control over your choice of breeding partner and the upbringing of your offspring, you're only going to tilt the scales in favour of ideal vision so much -- a lot is simply out of your control, especially considering that your own genetics bring some disposition towards dysopia. But to be perfectly honest, I think the manner of myopia you ought to be concerned about here is not the clinical, literal, ocular kind, but rather one that has more to do with the metaphorical extension of that term. :)  S n o w  let's rap 23:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Very simple solution: adopt. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

History of the Queen Victoria Monument
Just been listening to a conversation about the Victoria Monument in Liverpool that there used to be public toilets underneath it years ago (I've heard this before many times) but nobody knows if that is true or not.

Does anyone know if this is true or not ? Or Where there be info about it ?

80.195.85.92 (talk) 10:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There used to be subterranean toilets in Derby Square and there is a lot of commentary on the web that the statue either used to face the entrance or indicate it in some way. Photo of entrance here. Photo inside here. They were closed in the early 80s. I can't find anything to say they extended below the Monument, it appears they were nearby but built at the same time. The statue at Queen Victoria Square in Hull does continue to have public toilets beneath it. They were even Grade II listed in 1994, quick pic where you can see the entrance to the Gents here, shoddy Youtube vid of the interior here. Nanonic (talk) 11:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Additional - there are images of the original Liverpool excavations here along with some discussion that the Ladies toilets were closer to the monument and perhaps underneath. Nanonic (talk) 11:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * According to our article, the monument includes a large "pedestal" with symbolic sculptures etc, and looking at the images, then it seems that the toilets were certainly under that structure, if not under the actual statue itself. I have to confess that I've never been to Liverpool, so have no local knowledge to add - maybe User:KageTora, our resident Scouser, may be able to shed some more light on the subject. Alansplodge (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I go past there every week from the underground station at James St. to my favourite sushi restaurant at Liverpool One. I'll check to see if there is an entrance of some sort next time I go, because I have never heard this rumour. KägeTorä - (影虎)  ( もしもし！ ) 15:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes - Tevildo (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I used them in the 1970s, but I can't remember whether they were directly under Victoria. I don't think there is any entrance now, KT.  BTW, you know about her umbrella, viewed from a certain angle, don't you?  I expect someone can provide a photo.    D b f i r s   22:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Real person - Paul Berowne
Was Paul Berowne a real person? Can only see search results for a character in a novel. Also related is McIver-Berowne baronets. Hack (talk) 13:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The article about the baronetcy says it is currently unclaimed, but neither Berowne nor McIver-Berowne appear on the list of unclaimed baronetcies. DuncanHill (talk) 08:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, neither Berowne nor McIver-Berowne appear on the official roll of the baronetage. DuncanHill (talk) 08:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I am beginning to suspect it may be a hoax. Hack (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * And no results for either "Berowne" or "McIver-Berowne" or "McIver Berowne" in the London Gazette, where his baronetcy would have been announced, as would his army career. DuncanHill (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Both articles have been deleted, thanks for your work. Hack (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I love it when hoax articles like this get found. I remember seeing a list somewhere of the hoax articles that went the longest before being found.  If someone can post a link to that list, I'd be grateful. --Viennese Waltz 12:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. I think List of hoaxes on Wikipedia is what you are looking for. DuncanHill (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * So I can add it to the list, can someone see when this was created? Hack (talk) 13:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * An admin will be able to see when it was created - might be worth asking who did the deletion. There is a redirect dating back to 2012. DuncanHill (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I had a look at the page history before it got deleted. I think it was 2012 or so.  Yes that's the list I was thinking of, thanks Duncan. --Viennese Waltz 13:15, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It was created on 3 December 2012. DrKiernan (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Negotiating with Apocalyptic lunatics
I have an interest in the Waco siege. In particular, my focus is on the attempts by the FBI to negotiate with David Koresh in the weeks leading up to the horrifying climax.

My understanding is that the FBI negotiators were considered to have seriously taken the wrong tactics for dealing with a character such as Koresh. (E.g. engaging in religious debates with him, which was never going to work).

(Of course, I accept that even if the negotiators had been world-class at dealing with such a character, there is absolutely no guarantee of a peaceful outcome - but there would presumably have been a higher chance of one).

Could someone either offer some sourced opinions on what would have been the appropriate tack for the negotiators to take in attempting to persuade an apocalyptic lunatic to peacefully surrender? Or direct me to articles (either from the media or scholarly sources) dealing with the subject (this particular tragedy)?

Also, have any experts speculated on the likely chances of success (in obtaining a peaceful outcome) had the proper approach (whatever that is) been used?

PLEASE NOTE: I am NOT asking this to "blame or attack" the FBI. I'm simply trying to understand what lessons can be learned about the ideal way to approach such situations. 121.219.249.222 (talk) 15:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The expert speculation at the time, on various news sources, was all about how the ATF should have nabbed him when he was outside the compound, as inside the compound he had lots of followers, weapons, and hostages. He apparently did often leave the compound, so it was a really poor decision to try to arrest him there, as was continuing to plan the raid after they knew the element of surprise was lost.  Once agents had been killed, there may very well have been no peaceful way out.  (The speculation on why they tried to arrest him inside the compound was around them wanting to be able to get a look around for evidence of other crimes.) StuRat (talk) 16:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * An account regarding that aspect: ( I guess the OP is questioning negociations during the stand-off phase, but the rule there can be only "unconditional surrender" from the law enforcement point of vue, so you will have to dig into psychological publications for theories about whether this would have been possible. ) --Askedonty (talk) 16:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The OP asks a loaded question: “to persuade an apocalyptic lunatic”.  The final analysis was that the Waco community  still had faith in the   First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It was the authorities  had forgotten this which lead to such a shameful stand off  that it must have  some of the founding fathers of the US constitution revolving in their graves... Let this not ever happen again.--Aspro (talk) 18:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * For once I agree with Aspro--the apocalyptic lunatic here was Janet Reno. The fifth amendment also applies, since the ATF was using the arrest warrant on Koresh to justify a fishing expedition. μηδείς (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You mean the Fourth? — There's also the story that Koresh offered to make an appointment for ATF agents to look at the guns, but ATF was hungry for dramatic publicity. —Tamfang (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * My advice to the FBI was to go away and not bother the Branch Davidians except to invite them to testify against the ATF agents who started the shooting; but self-defense against "our team" is never tolerated, so that wasn't going to happen. In the real world I'd say: try to assuage, rather than feed, the Davidians' so-called paranoia. —Tamfang (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Online sales
It's often said in the UK that online sales are cannibalising brick and mortar sales but is this true in all developed countries? in the U.S., other European countries, Japan etc. 94.2.199.15 (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * True in the US, yes. The alternative is that total sales increase.  This might have been possible when Internet sales were 1% of total sales, but if Internet sales are 50% of total sales, that would mean twice as much stuff would have to be sold for brick-and-mortar stores not to lose sales.  Of course, many Internet sales are from the same brick-and-mortar stores, and transitioning their sales from one form to another isn't particularly a problem for them.  In fact, a hybrid system, where customers get the info online, then either buy directly at the store or have their Internet purchases sent to the store, might be the best for both customer and retailer (although perhaps not best for salespeople).  StuRat (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * A salesperson once tried to sell me a case & huge deductible fall/water plan when my uncased phone was designed to be thrown in a meter of saltwater and has fallen many times, lol. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yea, the world could probably due with fewer salespeople. At best they provide truthful info, but you can get that more reliably from other sources.  At worst they lie and convince you to buy something inappropriate.  Of course, web sites can also lie about their products, but there the evidence against them is relatively easy to collect, so they tend to be more honest, and you can also get info/reviews from independent sites.  Then, the worst part about salespeople is that they get a significant cut of the action, for providing this questionable info, while you can get more reliable product reviews for free, online. StuRat (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Project vs general management
Many sources claim that the skills used in both are similar and transferable. If that's the case, then why do people tend to stick to careers in one or the other. There isn't much moving between them. 94.2.199.15 (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There are some important areas that don't overlap, though, like project managers generally not having to fire people. StuRat (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As a generality, when one already has experience in a particular field or discipline, it's easier to get another in the same one than in a different, even if related one, because when potential employers are considering many applicants (100+ is typical) they often value previous experience – which is demonstrable – more heavily that potential – which is harder to measure. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

To hold palms up or not?
The Roman Catholic Mass has a missal with prescribed recitations. What it doesn't say is the hand motions and other body movements during the Mass, such as holding the palms up, making the sign of the cross, genuflecting, standing up, or sitting down. So, how does one know when one should hold the palms up (or not), make the sign of the cross, genuflect, stand up, or sit down - or does one just have to look around the room for the body cues? Also, does it matter which hand one uses to make the sign of the cross or to shake hands with others while saying "Peace be with you"? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It is down to body language. Open palms upwards signifies openness. Other than for con-artists, priests, and politicians, etc.,  it is difficult for a ordinary   person to display open palm whilst in their mind-set  is of closed fists. The ritual of having acolytes repeat the physical performances is a psychological trick to catch the the unwary into following one's own way, belief and dogma.--Aspro (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Riiight. Seriously, give me a Roman Catholic response. 66.213.29.17 (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Always right hand for sign of the cross for Catholics, left for Orthodox. I can't even recite most of the Mass anymore, so the ritual can be forgotten. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Er, not quite. It's right hand for both.  The Catholics do it forehead-breast-left-right, while the Orthos go forehead-breast-right-left.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I would've wrote that if I hadn't been so absent-minded. I even wrote this because you do it that way on the front side of both. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also the Orthodox have two ways of doing it: the Old Believers do it with two fingers while the official church does it with three fingers (including the thumb). Contact Basemetal   here  21:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)



Does Greece have a backup plan?
According to the media, the Greek government is focused intensely on trying to get the European Commission and ECB to bail them out without too many strings attached, but European leaders have made clear that they are unwilling to offer terms acceptable to the Greeks. Meanwhile, the recent referendum makes it all but impossible for the Greek government to agree to the terms on offer. So it seems likely that Greece will soon run out of euros. Yet Greece has few exports and earns little money except through tourism, which is collapsing as tourists fear chaos there, and Greece is reliant on imports for much of its food and nearly all of its fuel. Despite this, I can find no evidence in the media that the Greek government has made contingency plans to keep the country from running out of food and fuel in the increasingly likely event they do not secure a bailout that they will accept. This would be a serious humanitarian crisis. I have limited time to research this. Can anyone else find evidence of contingency plans to prevent economic collapse and starvation in Greece? Marco polo (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The problem is the contingency plans aren't going to come from the current Greek government. After a bit of chaos, you can expect the current government to resign en masse and be replaced by one more willing to negotiate.  Also, the Greek population will then be more willing to accept those terms, once they've seen what the alternative looks like. StuRat (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * But that makes sense only if the current Greek government is both delusional and incompetent. Of course, that is possible.  They have to be delusional to think that they can get what they want from Europe, and they have to be incompetent not to have a fallback plan.  Arguably, what Europe is proposing for Greece is not a real solution but a recipe for further economic contraction and crisis that merely postpones a reckoning.  If the Greek government were competent, they would be ready to implement a backup plan that offered a way through the crisis (nationalization of the banks and rationing of resources to support essential infrastructure, the tourism sector, and essential, prioritized imports).  That way, they might be able to mobilize national solidarity and hold onto power.  But maybe they really are delusional and incompetent.  Can anyone find evidence to the contrary?  Marco polo (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Escaping from the Euro is the back up plan. Let me explain it this way. Margaret Thatcher would not  let the UK  adopt the Euro even though her next door neighbour in number 11 (Nigel Lawson) showed that he could track the exchange rate. However, should a country find itself in a position where it can not reconcile its balance of payments it can always  devalue. Whist Greece is locked into the Euro it can't. It is 101 economics.--Aspro (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * But devaluing the currency is essentially another way to default. In either case, nobody will want to loan them more money, knowing it may not be repaid or may be repaid with devalued drachmas.  So, they would have to learn to live within their means, which means doing unpleasant things like collecting income taxes and reducing pensions.  They could just skip the drama and do that now, but collecting income taxes from the rich is very difficult for them to do, for political reasons (not so much different from the US, in that respect). StuRat (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The value of the drachma in their pocket will not change with devaluation. For further explanation read: . With the Euro the economy stalls for the lack of Euros in circulation. It is something that the West found an advantage with when it abandoned the gold standard. The IMF could lend cheap dollars to poor countries, then when the dollar value changed, the borrowers found they could not climb out of their debt mountain and had become slaves to the US economy. This is how imperialists become imperialists. The standard of living 'you' enjoy today (and others don't)  is the result of the powerful being able to   move the goalposts each and every time.--Aspro (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That "pound in your pocket" comment was from 1967 from someone trying to sell devaluation to the public. Since then national economies have become far more interlinked.  So, for a Greek buying anything produced abroad, like a car, their devalued drachma would most definitely buy less.  Same if they ever travel abroad. StuRat (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This may sound odd, but what is to stop the Greeks from simply printing more Euros? Would Merkel back an invasion force to stop it?  I am sure I must be missing something here, but I can't imagine what. μηδείς (talk) 21:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * For a bank to ask for more paper currency it has to show it has 'money' on deposit. The Greek financial accounts are in the red so the printing of more can't be authorized.--Aspro (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That turns out to be the NOMITACCED (No. 1 Most Inflationary Thing A Country Can Ever Do). --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Indeed. In addition, Greece only prints some Euro banknotes (IIRC the 10-Euro ones). More importantly, such a move would lead to Greece being immediately and summarily thrown out of the Eurozone and the EU. Not that this may not happen either way the way the crisis is going, but the Greek government, whether led by Syriza or not, are not willing to commit political and national suicide in this way and have to shoulder the blame into the bargain. Constantine  ✍  21:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This article explains some details, although it's a lot less practical than the article makes out. It's important to note that the Bank of Athens (as opposed to the German and Austrian presses that normally print Greek Euros) hasn't printed many Euros so far - of the notes that the EuroTracer website has detected, there are 105,636 notes with the Bank of Athens "N" printing code, against the 4,392,845 notes in the system - and the Greek banknotes are entirely low denomination (mostly fivers and tenners, nothing bigger than a fifty). It looks like about 1 in 3000 euros have been collected by the EuroTracer system, so lets assume that we have a fair sample of Greek banknotes, and in total there are around 300,000,000 Greek-printed euros with a total value of something like €3,000,000,000. If every single one of those euros was in Tsipras's hands right now, he could pay off about... 1% of the Greek debt. To pay its bills effectively with fresh Euros, Greece would have to either a) print massive quantities of Greek €5 and €10 notes (dozens of times more than currently exist), which would be quickly detected, b) produce new plates with a faked printing code on it and churn out massive quantities of Euros that pretend to be from other countries, which would cause them big problems with serial number generation and would be detected as soon as those euros started getting paid into banks, or c) obtain from somewhere the equipment for printing €500 bills and just go into straight-up counterfeiting (and again, struggle with serial number generation). Even this would be noticed very quickly - The Greek debt is (according to our article) on the order of €300 billion, and the total value of all euro banknotes in existence is €900 billion. Physical money printing is an impractical solution to dealing with state debts (which is why nowadays, quantitative easing is mainly an computerized process). Smurrayinchester 09:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks,, that answers my question in a practical manner--the sheer number of notes needed. Of course I was already aware that such printing would be unauthorized (hence my Merkel invasion allusion) and that it would lead to hyperinflation--ameliorated by the fact that the devaluation would be across the Eurozone, not local, if they could pull it off. μηδείς (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the immediate plan is they are going to issue scrip (tax anticipation notes or TANs) as a parallel currency alongside Euros. They'll pay out instead of Euros and also accept them back for payments of taxes.  If you owe taxes to the Greek government you'll be able to pay with TAN instead of Euros, which means the TANs will inherently have some value, at least in Greece.  So that gets a little more money in circulation.  On the other hand it means the government is bringing in fewer actual Euros that it can service external debt with.  Then mostly it's trying to work out a deal with the IMF, ECB, etc.  50.0.136.194 (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * But my point is that the IMF, ECB, etc., have indicated that they are not going to offer better terms to Greece than the ones voted down in the recent referendum. It seems very likely, even probable, that they will not be able to work out a mutually acceptable deal.  If they can't, the ECB cuts off funding to Greece's banks and they collapse.  Meanwhile, Greece depends on imports for its food and fuel.  It depends heavily on tourism to earn the money needed for imports, but tourism earnings are plummeting amid fear of unrest.  In this situation, how are they going to pay for food and fuel when the euros run out?  It's all well and good to issue scrip in lieu of euros to state employees and contractors, but without foreign exchange earnings to give that scrip value, why would foreign exporters of food and fuel accept it?  There are possible ways around this:  borrowing hard currency against collateral in the form of state-owned property and using that to cover needed imports during a transitional period, together with a plan to nationalize banks and impose capital controls and rationing as needed to insure that the tourism industry gets what it needs to bring in hard currency. However, I can find no mention in the media of any planning along these lines, and a plan would need to exist before it is needed to avoid a damaging period of chaos.  (Nothing would scare tourists away like food riots.) Can anyone find evidence that the government is planning for this kind of transition in the likely case that no acceptable bailout is possible?  Marco polo (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Why don't Roman Catholic Masses ever finish the hymn?
Last week, I visited a Roman Catholic Mass. I was surprised that there were Amazing Grace and America The Beautiful in the hymnal. Everybody just sang the first two or three stanzas, but never finished the entire hymn. Why? Why do Protestant churches finish the entire hymn in the hymnal? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The Catholic masses I've been to usually had more going on then Protestant services, especially with everyone lining up to receive communion.
 * Protestantism often downplays communion (freeing up more time in the service), but American Protestantism (influenced by the Great Awakenings) places a lot of emphasis on the congregation participation. Since having everyone preaching would be a stupid idea, and most people can only tolerate so much call-and-response liturgy, that leaves singing hymns (which is more fun for most people).  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Having everyone preach" is exactly what's done in some sects, although they are more likely to call it "testifying". See Universal priesthood (doctrine) and Quakers. StuRat (talk) 20:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * They don't make you wait until everyone's said something, though, and everyone doesn't do it at the same time. I should have been clearer that I did not mean "volunteering to taking turns preaching."  Ian.thomson (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I believe the Amish actually do take turns preaching. And many, many other congregations are "lay-led" and so take turns conducting the service. Neutralitytalk 00:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Back (waaay back) when I attended a Methodist boarding school, I necessarily took part in Methodist and/or Anglican services daily (twice on Sunday), and in the subsequent 40 years have not infrequently seen/heard services on BBC TV/radio (by dint of not bothering to switch stations when they come on). Many hymns have quite a few verses, and it was and is routine for the preacher to announce that "we" will sing (only) Verses 1,2 and 6 (or whatever). If all the verses of all the hymns were sung, it would considerably lengthen the service, and I suspect exhaust some of the older participants (since both standing for extended periods and singing (especially if untrained) can be quite tiring. Also, I seem to recall that some verses of some hymns in the then Methodist Hymnbook were perhaps a little outdated and irrelevant (if not borderline racist in a 20th-century context). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why "Amazing Grace" would be surprising in a hymnal but I digress... The song is sung rather slowly in general and has, from what I could see in a search, anywhere from 5 to 7 verses.  "America the Beautiful" has anywhere from 4 to 8 verses, again from my Google searches for lyrics.  That would chew up a big chunk of time.  Nearly every Catholic mass that I've been to is just under an hour, maybe 45 minutes at the least, and I've been to a lot of Catholic masses.  When you consider that you have 2-3 other songs, the communion, 3 bible readings, a homily, and other assorted things to get through, something has to be cut to fit the hour.  Dismas |(talk) 21:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * A lot of Catholics before the 20th century would actually be pretty shocked that their descendents are singing music written by heretics who rebelled against the Church established by Jesus. Heck, my music appreciation professor (a church music director) almost got in trouble (with just an old priest, everyone else didn't care) for trying to play Bach. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Jesus did not establish the Catholic Church. That's Catholic propaganda. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Dam it. Baseball Bugs  is right again.  See 1 Corinthians 3:11 “θεμέλιον γὰρ ἄλλον οὐδεὶς δύναται θεῖναι παρὰ τὸν κείμενον, ὅς ἐστιν Ἰησοῦς Χριστός”. His body was his church – no other!--Aspro (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As a Baptist, those views obviously are not mine. It is accurate to say that that was their views.  As for which Church Jesus established, that's a matter of religious doctrine in all cases, unless someone has found some stuff that'll prompt a complete rewrite of the Historicity of Jesus article.  Ian.thomson (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * These days isn't doctrine spelt p r o p a g a n d a?--Aspro (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * One man's sincere belief is another's cultish brainwashing, and that goes both ways for all peoples. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There have been a few wording changes to "America the Beautiful" from the original poem, but it's still just 4 verses. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ian Thomson's point above can be dated to Vatican II, not the turn of the 20th century. The adoption of the vernacular celebration of the mass and the encouragement of other "hymns" (like guitar accompanied Cat Steven's songs) began in the mid 1960's.  The Cat Stevens-Kumbaya mass became decidedly unpopular in our parish, and was dropped after a few months.  Most Catholics nowadays would likely have no idea that Amazing Grace was a Protestant hymn. μηδείς (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)