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

July 2

Ptolemaic numbers

I am looking for a table of Ptolemaic numbers and their modern counterparts (1, 2, etc). Not a system of planets or tides, just the actual physical numbers, 1-20 if possible. If you can find them please tell me what I should have entered into the Google search engine also! :) 14.2.30.233 (talk) 00:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are you looking for how the numbers 1-20 were written in an ancient language ? Ptolemy was Greco-Egyptian, in Alexandria while it was under Roman control, so do you want ancient Greek, ancient Egyptian, or Latin, from that period ? StuRat (talk) 01:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Our articles on the Almagest and Geography (Ptolemy) say that both were originally written in Greek, so presumably Greek numerals would be the form used. In fact, that last article has a map from the Geography which shows the use of Greek numerals. Interestingly, it's a decimal system, rather than being like Roman numerals. MChesterMC (talk) 08:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Terminations and buy-back

I've just learned Macy's ditched Donald Trump, as did NBC. The network will also no longer air the Miss USA and Miss Universe Pageants. (Trump still owns half of the Miss Universe Organization.) By any chance, will somebody hired by CBS, buy Trump's half, as well as the broadcast rights to both pageants?2604:2000:712C:2900:5090:B7FE:BF98:2807 (talk) 03:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not the job of the Reference Desk to make predictions. --70.49.171.136 (talk) 06:47, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me rephrase the question. Since Macy's and NBC ditched Donald Trump, does that also mean the Miss Universe Organization have done the same thing, as well?2604:2000:712C:2900:5090:B7FE:BF98:2807 (talk) 07:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Their statement (pdf press release available from http://www.missuniverse.com/press_releases/index) does not say they have. 184.147.138.101 (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

There still seems to be an open question of whether those entities had the legal right to do what they did, so even the stuff that's been done already, could eventually be nullified. Or not. So there's no way to predict. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Using that approach, we would be loath to report that anyone has ever been convicted of a crime, because there's always the possibility they could appeal, be successful, and become un-convicted. No, I think it's best to report what is, and let what may be may be and deal with it when and if it ever becomes is. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

At least one of the pageants has already been picked up by an independent cable network, which doesn't rule out their return to one of the "big 3" but probably makes it unlikely for the near future at least.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 01:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

India-Bangladesh border deal

Is there anywhere online that I can see a map showing the results of the recent border deal between India and Bangladesh? From what I can tell, Google Maps still displays the pre-deal situation. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 22:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

India–Bangladesh enclaves was on the front page here three weeks ago. μηδείς (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but that article only has maps showing the pre-deal situation. I'm asking if there are any maps showing the outcome of the deal. --Lazar Taxon (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting that the bill itself [1] does not contain a map, though all the pieces of land are described very exactly. Anyway, a recent map *was* made, according to the bill: as determined through joint survey and fully depicted in the respective adversely possessed land area index map (APL map) finalised by the Land Records and Survey Departments of both the countries between December, 2010 and August, 2011. I can't find whether this map has been made public though - can anyone else? 184.147.138.101 (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This question would probably interest Wikipedia:WikiProject India/Members (especially User:Amitrc7th and User:Anuomkara and User:Copperchloride and User:Harsimaja and User:Kondi and User:LRBurdak and user:Ninney and User:Planemad and User:Vin09; also User:Amartyabag and User:Arijit109 and User:Tamravidhir). Also, it would probably interest Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh/Members (especially User:Crtew and User:Freemesm).

—Wavelength (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

This question would probably interest Wikipedia:WikiProject Geography/Project volunteers (especially User:Cooper-42 and User:Funandtrvl and User:Laurinavicius and User:Ridoco234). Also, it would probably interest Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Volunteers (especially User:Dwaipayanc and User:Funandtrvl and User:Kirananils and User:Naveenpf and User:The Way).

—Wavelength (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

These links might be helpful: http://www.askalo.info —> http://www.askalo.in.

—Wavelength (talk) 03:44, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

You can ask a librarian at the Delhi Public Library (http://www.dpl.gov.in/index.php/ask-librarian).

—Wavelength (talk) 04:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

According to this article: Bangladesh and India – Mapped out, the people in the enclaves will be given the choice to which 'side' they will be on, along with citizenship. So, the map wouldn't exist yet, and I don't know what timeline the people have been given to make their choices. Funandtrvl (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, the residents can chose which country they want to be citizens of, but the actual enclaves themselves will be exchanged no matter what - if you wanted to remain an Indian/Bangladeshi citizen, you'd have to move to contiguous India/Bangladesh. Smurrayinchester 07:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

July 3

Joseph Lane

Besides his pro-slavery views, why was Joseph Lane chosen as the Southern Democrats' vice-presidential candidate alongside John C. Breckinridge in 1860? Was their a strategy of using Lane's Western (Oregon) and Northern (Indiana) affiliations to curry votes in non-Southern states?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

That might be, but regarding the 1860 Baltimore convention however, things were not at all as much clear cut as they became at the time of Secession. Daniel S. Dickinson from New-York for example, gave his support to Breckinridge. --Askedonty (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Baikonur, Kazakhstan - status

What is the status of Baikonur? Is it Russian territory or Kazakhstani territory controlled by Russia. The article seems a bit confusing. Hack (talk) 07:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

According to this article in The Atlantic from June 2013 [2], The town exists in a strange state of political suspension. When the Cosmodrome was built, it was squarely in USSR territory. Today that land is Kazakhstan, and Russia rents the town from the Kazakh government for $115 million a year. 184.147.138.101 (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Whiskey barrels on the American frontier

I'm in the middle of writing an expansion for the Yost Tavern stub, and according to this historical text, in 1809, the tavern's customers purchased more than fifty barrels of whiskey. Was "barrel" a standard size at the time (e.g. the 31 or 31.5 gallons of a fluid Barrel (unit)?), or does it simply mean that Mr Yost dispensed the contents of thirty-one whiskey casks? Perhaps there was a standardised size for taxation purposes, but Whiskey Rebellion tells me that the 1791 federal excise tax on spirits was repealed in 1801, so I can't rely on its definitions. Nyttend (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Since barrels were used to transport liquids at the time, they would have needed to be standardized to avoid people getting cheated (and also so you would know how many fit on a given wagon, etc.). However, that doesn't necessarily mean the standard was 31 or 31.5 gallons. There might have even been regional variations in the standard size. StuRat (talk) 23:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Barrels were made by "coopers" - simple logic posits any given cooper kept to specific sizes based on measurements of his tools, as otherwise it would be nearly impossible to make a non-leaky barrel. As this was a "trade" - coopers in any area would have had to keep to the same standards. Collect (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Not necessarily a single size, though. They could have had several. StuRat (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

According to this book [3], Ohio had no laws about standard measures until 1811. You can scroll back back a few pages to get an idea of the standards that applied in neighbouring states at the time. 184.147.138.101 (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

What are the reasons for the placement and position of the numbers on the face of a clock?

Recently, some incident (irrelevant and unimportant) sparked my curiosity about these matters. Question One: Is there any rhyme or reason as to why the numbers on the face of a clock are placed in the way that they are? In other words, why does "clockwise" go around from the top 12, moving (somewhat rightward) to the 1, then the 2, then the 3, etc.? Counterclockwise goes the other way (somewhat towards the "left" and down from the 12). Is there any practical or logistical or ergonomic or historical reason for this? Once the standard was set, of course, everyone simply followed that standard. But, when it first started (i.e., clocks were first created), there was an affirmative decision to place the numbers in the positions that we now see. Question Two: Same question as above. With the added question, why did they place the "12" at the very top? I am (obviously) referring to a round clock face. I scanned this article (clock), but I didn't see anything (unless I missed it). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

'Clockwise' follows the movement of the sun in the northern hemisphere - and accordingly follows the shadow on a sundial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. And what happens in the southern hemisphere? The exact opposite? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

The Southern Hemisphere is well known as a place of heathens, pagans, convicts, sports champions and other assorted riffraff, and nothing important ever happens there. Just forget about it, I say. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Never a truer utterance said. Also, their TV soap operas are an offense to the sensibilities of all cultured people as well  ;¬)--Aspro (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I think Larry Wilmore may be positing that the Southern Hemisphere might be the Northern Hemisphere.[4] Bus stop (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes - sundials are different in the Southern Hemisphere. [5]. Collect (talk) 21:56, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Ancient Egyptian sundial (c. 1500 BCE) from the Valley of the Kings. Daytime divided into 12 parts.

There is a ton of info here History of timekeeping devices though you have to sift through it to find specific answers to your questions. MarnetteD|Talk 22:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

As for why the 12 is at the top, that's where we normally start things, like reading from the top of the page. Keep in mind that the 12 is also a 0, from a time before we had such a concept. But, the day still started there (as did afternoon), whether it had a zero of not. So, then why do we normally start looking at an object from the top ? Well, it certainly would seem odd if you started looking at a person's feet before their face, since feet don't display emotions or talk. Perhaps that started the pattern ? StuRat (talk) 23:03, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

My question wasn't so much "why is the 12 at the top, instead of somewhere else?". My question was more along the lines of "why is the 12, and not some other number, at the top?" Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Before the decimal system was invented, it was convenient to use numbers that could easily be divided to yield integers. 10 hours in a day would fail if you tried to divide it by 3, while 24 can be divided by 2, 3, or 4, so you could set guard shifts every 12, 8, or 6 hours without having to worry about minutes. (At night, without sunlight, they could use a version of an hourglass.) So why two divisions of 12 hours ? Well, noon was a convenient point to split the day in two, as you didn't even need a sundial to tell when it was noon, since that's when shadows are shortest (this method no longer works because of time zones and daylight savings time). StuRat (talk) 13:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

You are not understanding my question. Say that we have the exact clock face that we are now accustomed to. But, instead of a "12" at the very top, there is a "7" at the very top. (Or whatever number) So, the clock would appear, clock wise, 7 (at the top), 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 1 (at the very bottom), 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. Or, with whatever permutation, given the "new" number at the top. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I guess I still don't get your Q then. I answered as to why the day starts at the top of the clock, and why the start of the day is a 12. What else where you asking ? StuRat (talk) 22:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

When "they" designed the face of the clock, why not place a "7" at the top-most position? Or a "4"? Or whatever number? If I were designing a clock (so that it wold be similar to reading a book, for example), I'd probably place the "1" where we now normally place the "9". To me, that would seem the most analogous to "normal" left-to-right reading of text. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@StuRat: I guess I still don't get your Q then. I answered as to why the day starts at the top of the clock, and why the start of the day is a 12. What else where you asking? In other words, why are you assuming that the day should "start" at the top-most position of the clock (that is, where we normally place the 12)? Why can't the day "start" at some other position? Like placing the "12" at the normal "6" position? Or placing the "12" at the normal "9" position? Or whatever? The day does not have to "start" at the top-most position of the clock face. (That's merely a convention.) Or, is there a reason why it does? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"...that's where we normally start things, like reading from the top of the page... So, then why do we normally start looking at an object from the top ? Well, it certainly would seem odd if you started looking at a person's feet before their face, since feet don't display emotions or talk. Perhaps that started the pattern ?" To add a bit more, some might have read a scroll from right-to-left or left-to-right, but I don't think anyone read from bottom-to-top. That would either require completely opening the scroll to start reading it, or perhaps writing upside-down on the inside side of the scroll. A "double scroll" (with two hubs) fixes this problem, but I don't think those are good for long term storage, as the exposed area will be likely to age faster. StuRat (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Really 12 on the stereotypical sundial should be "down" (nearer). If it were up then your shadow might get in the way. The Sun is highest in the sky when the shadow's at the top of the dial and is lowest when the shadow's theoretically at the bottom but I'm not sure if your body shading the gnomon every noon is worth it. Maybe the most common sundial when and where clocks were invented was a more body shade-resistant type? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

A (horizontal) sundial can be viewed from any side, so just view it from whichever side won't put it in shadow (and that's where you would want to be to see the it's shadow most clearly, anyway). Putting it up on a high table would also make it less likely to fall into shadow, and thus usable closer to sunrise and sunset. StuRat (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

That would totally screw up the poster for Tomorrow at Seven. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:29, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

Let's first discard placements considered starting at the left or at the right. If the one was at the top, the twelve would seem to be waiting to take the place of the one. Now let's try any other possible sequence: they all seem highly arbitrary. Is that of being conditioned by the two first tests ? (there was only one) --Askedonty (talk) 19:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It is also where midnight would be, on a conventional vertically-mounted sundial, if sundials actually worked at midnight. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

If a sundial works at midnight, it doesn't work at any time (or what used to be times), including midnight. It would stick at "all the time", and nobody would ever need to buy one. Scary stuff. Less clear whether planes would fall from the sky, Y2K-style, but maybe! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:17, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

A sundial could work at midnight near the poles, or even in space, provided it had at 24 hour rotation period about it's axis, and it's axis wasn't pointed toward the Sun. StuRat (talk) 02:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that makes sense. Maybe. All I know is sundials need light and midnight needs darkness. Turn! Turn! Turn! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

See Land of the Midnight Sun. StuRat (talk) 12:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Definitely catchier with "midnight", but it's not night. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:26, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

Presumably you could make a "moondial", but would have to be re-oriented daily, as the moon is only overhead at midnight when it's full. And as the moon gets dimmer the rest of the month, the moondial would be hard to read. So probably not worth the effort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

We've a moondial article. Unsourced, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:26, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

The full explanation is given in the article clockwise, which has some interesting snippets about clocks that move in the opposite direction. Am adding this pic from the article MarnetteD linked - the oldest known sundial. 184.147.138.101 (talk) 23:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

According to Clock face, the way it was set up imitates the way it appears on sundials. That, of course, raises the question of why it's at the top on a sundial. As suggested by others here, the 12 is also a 0. And at high noon, local time, the straight-overhead sun produces no "angular" shadow, so to speak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

See Gnomon - the gnomon is at an angle such that a shadow is cast (other than exactly at noon at an equinox exactly at the equator). Collect (talk) 11:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

According to 12-hour clock, the conventional division of the day into two sections of 12 hours each, with the 12s being noon and midnight, goes back to ancient times. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

July 4

Approximate number of STANAG magazines manufactured annually in the US

I'm trying to find the approximate number of STANAG magazines manufactured annually in the US. Alternatively, the number of such magazines sold annually would also suffice as an approximation, since imports and exports are essentially negligible. I found some excellent data[6][7][8] regarding the number of firearms manufactured, but can't seem to find any useful data regarding firearm magazines.

I asked this question previously. My other car is a cadr (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Crossing the floor

Have there ever been (recorded) instances of an MP changing party affiliaton in the midst of a debate and literally crossing the floor?--The Theosophist (talk) 03:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Winston Churchill crossed the floor publicly, to the applause and boos of the appropriate sides; I don't know if this were in the middle of a debate, but it was a literal floor-crossing. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

You sure about that? Source I'm looking at says Churchill "entered the Chamber and, without prior notice, sat on the opposition benches with the Liberal Party." On the other hand, "In 1981, Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler concluded a speech by crossing the floor to join the Social Democratic Party from the Conservatives." Traditions and customs of the House: House of Commons Background Paper. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It's been several years since I read of the incident; apparently I misremembered. Nyttend (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It's happened numerous times in the Australian Parliament (the relevant section of the House of Reps Practice is here). It can be a career-ending or -limiting move, but some pollies still have principles. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 03:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

What is the correct term for this relationship?

I am trying to identify a cousin-related term for the daughter of the sister of my mom's brother's wife. Can someone help me on this? 221.13.204.254 (talk) 09:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm presuming the relationship is between you and her? I'd consider she was your cousin-in-law, but there's no blood or legal relationship between you. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

|

Adam

Agatha

Luke

Laura

Betty

Ben

Charles

Corinda

Mark

Maud

David

Emma

Nicola

[ec] See Cousin#Additional terms, and the diagram under "Maternal cousin". The relationship you describe is that of "David" and "Nicola" in that diagram, who, according to the article, "would only be related if they share a common ancestor." To spell it out:

Your mom's brother ("Charles" in the diagram) is your uncle.

Your mom's brother's wife ("Corinda") is your aunt-by-marriage.

Your mom's brother's wife's sister ("Mark" in the diagram - a brother rather than a sister, but it doesn't affect the relationship) is not related to you by blood or marriage (although it's reasonable to call her an "aunt"). Neither is her daughter ("Nicola") related to you; it's reasonable to call her a "cousin", but she'll only be something like a twenty-sixth cousin, and finding that number will mean tracing back your aunt-by-marriage's family tree until it rejoins yours. Tevildo (talk) 09:39, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Step-cousin ? StuRat (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no way to tell from the chart how far back the connection could be. The ones at the top could be siblings or first cousins or whatever. Lacking further info, in cases like this they're "in-laws of in-laws", and it's convenient to consider them "cousins" as the term "cousin" covers a lot of ground. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

My mother's family (quite large and complicated) jokingly uses the phrase "the in-laws and the out-laws" when collectively referring to those who have no direct blood relationship, and yet are considered part of the extended family. When referring to these "relatives" individually (or when addressing them) we simplify things by using the catch-all "cousin"... as in: "Good to see you again, Cousin Fred". Blueboar (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

• Unless I am missing something, Nicola is David's cousin's cousin. This situation came up often when I was young, and that's how we always expressed the relationship. μηδείς (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

How do I find the SET-plan budget

On Energy_policy_of_the_European_Union#SET_Plan, the article (before my edits) mentioned that the SET plan budget should be out in late 2008. I searched EUR-Lex but I could not find it. Can somebody tell me how to find something like that in EUR-Lex? --Ysangkok (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Naming of 61 Communards shipyard in Odessa

There is a shipyard in Mykolayiv, Ukraine, named during the Soviet Union for "61 Communards". I've just read the Communards and Paris Commune articles, but I can't find any reference to a group of 61. Guessing they might have been victims of a summary execution during the reconquest of Paris by the regular army, but can anyone confirm that? 213.205.251.251 (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Just as a point of order, or something like that, since starting to learn Russian it's always annoyed me that we translate names involving "imeni" as such awkward Boratisms. The meaning is clear, and it's not like we don't name things after heroes or events in the West. Written from fairly close to "square in name of great battle Trafalgar", London. 213.205.251.251 (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

This might be better on the article talk page, but the most official name of the shipyard is "State Enterprise 'Shipyard named after 61 Communards'", according to their website. Other sources use more reasonable translations, such as "The 61 Communards Shipyard", which might be a better title for our article. Finding information to answer the OP's question isn't proving easy - would it have been announced in Izvestia? Tevildo (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah! According to this article (which calls it "the 61 Communards Shipyard"), it was named after "strikers who took it over and closed it down during the 1905 Revolution." So, no connection with Paris apart from the name. Tevildo (talk) 09:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

According to this article, "When on July, 14th, 1905 [ OS ] the rebellious battleship [ Potemkin ] has lifted mutiny, workers of Nikolaev have supported the risen seamen mass strikes." This may have been the incident that Stalin decided to commemorate. Tevildo (talk) 09:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, while I have nothing to contribute to this, I just NEED to exclaim that I toured part of this shipyard yesterday. Amazing coincidence. 217.76.196.150 (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

You can see the Monument of the 61 Communards here, although they seem to have only got around to two of them. Alansplodge (talk) 13:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Do illegal migrants have good reason to head for the UK, as opposed to other stable countries?

Another one! :-) There are now several thousand illegal migrants hanging around the ferry port in Calais, desperate to get into Britain by any means available. Regardless if they would all qualify as proper refugees, I'm not disputing that they had sensible reasons for wanting to get into Europe. But by this point they are in France, and presumably most have come through other European countries to get there. Are they completely deluded in holding out for Britain, or does it make sense for them to resist claiming asylum somewhere on the Continent? 213.205.251.251 (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

English is the international language of business. They might figure they'll fare better immersed in that than French, German or whatever. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:21, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

What a ridiculous, unsourced piece of guesswork. Try this article instead for some actual answers, e.g. admiration of British society, perceived less racism, existence of ethnic communities that they can fit into, perceived better state education, number of minority ethnic MPs, etc. --Viennese Waltz 22:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I've added a source, less ridiculous now. Immigrants to the UK must pass an English test. French immigrants must pass a French test. If there's more English in the global media (and it seems there is), it stands to reason more people could more easily pass the English one. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:03, July 4, 2015 (UTC)

But who says they're "illegal migrants"? You have to actually cross the borders of a country, and do so contrary to the laws of that country, to become "illegal". If all they're doing at this stage is contemplating migrating to the UK, there's nothing illegal about thinking. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The French and UK governments say they're illegal as they have entered France (and the EU) illegally and wish to further enter the UK illegally. Nanonic (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing illegal? Seriously though, have we considered whether they think snow's a real good thing? Britain's a bit colder than Africa and South Asia, but nothing compared to mountain Europe's chilling effect (literally, not this). InedibleHulk (talk) 00:48, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

There are many reasons, chief amongst those reported is the lower unemployment rate compared to France (that is, they believe they would have better job prospects in the UK). Tied in with this is that a lot of them know a small amount of English but no French at all so the UK is more attractive. A third reason is that it is seen to be easier to declare a wish to seek asylum in the UK. Some also mention the hostile attitude to them in France. See [9], [10], [11] and [12]. Nanonic (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

See also this on Asylum shopping and the Dublin Regulation. Nanonic (talk) 00:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

For a very general and possibly useless answer, consider everything's tendency toward the path of least resistance. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:13, July 5, 2015 (UTC)

Well actually it's the path of MOST resistance, because France and most other EU countries are in the Schengen Area, so once you're inside, there are open borders; however, the UK won't be doing with any of that malarky and still has border controls at the English Channel which serves us "as a moat defensive to a house, Against the envy of less happier lands". Alansplodge (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly the easiest path, geopolitically, but not as hard as trekking to Northern Scandinavia. Particularly if they don't like snow and prefer speaking English. Also remember, any path that doesn't lead to the right destination is a dead end. Water is fine flowing that way, but humans are far needier. They'll take the easiest path to where they want to go. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:54, July 6, 2015 (UTC)

My point is that once you get inside the Schengen Area, you can legally go where you like, however to get to the UK you have to conceal yourself on a lorry somehow, a process that has killed several wannabe Britons. Examples: Sudanese migrant crushed on M25 after hiding under lorry, Two migrants burn to death while hiding inside lorry bound for Britain after it bursts into flames in France, Migrant crushed by lorry; at least 17 killed this year and the worst example from 2000; 58 dead in port lorry Alansplodge (talk) 13:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Understood your point, generally, but thanks for the specifics. My general point was just that if the place you'd like to go isn't in the Area, you can't go where you'd like. Sometimes stowing away makes things easier, but yes, sometimes much harder. Tricky to generalize what's easier for everyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:10, July 7, 2015 (UTC)

Is it known how many percent try for Britain and how many say the Continent's enough? Why don't the strongest wait for the point of maximum temperature and then swim to the Channel Islands after midnight on a moonless night and navigate by the North Star, lol. I'm sure the French coast and Jersey is less well guarded than Calais. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

BBC article on the relative merits of Britain v France for migrants: [13]. 04:30, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

July 5

When was Vostok Island claimed by the UK?

The best sourcing I can find is that a "Mr John T. Arundel" claimed Vostok Island for the United Kingdom in 1873. Does anyone have any idea if it's possible to find the specific date and what it might be? The best I can conceive is going through the archives of Parliament for 1873-4 and seeing if it was mentioned but that seems an excessive amount of work that may not even pan out. --Golbez (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Arundel also claimed Flint Island for the UK in 1881, again without any specific date; would love to know that as well. --Golbez (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

We do have an article on him: John T. Arundel, which lists several sources. Rojomoke (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if it was related to the Challenger expedition, which was in those parts in early 1874? Alansplodge (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I found an official looking 1940 Report on the Phoenix and Line Islands with special reference to the question of British sovereignty (link to pdf at bottom of web page). See page 40 of the Report for details about Vostok Island.--Cam (talk) 18:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Order of competing claims

(I am not sure if this is the right place, if not, I would be happy if someone directed me to the correct place)

In many articles, in WP:ARBPIA, there are competing claims. The UN says something, Israel says something, the Palestinians say something etc. Is there some guideline as to which order these claims should be presented in a section? See for instance, the dispute here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggest you ask at WT:NPOV... that would be the policy that best applies (as DUE WEIGHT may have an impact on the order of presentation). Blueboar (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Raymond Lubitz

Resolved

The final chapter of the book Anarchy, State, and Utopia lists a number of individuals. One of them is "Raymond Lubitz". Who is Robert Nozick likely referring to? The name could be misspelled (for example the same list includes "Hugh Hefner" spelled with two "f"'s). If it helps, the entire list is as follows: "Wittgenstein, Elizabeth Taylor, Bertrand Russell, Thomas Merton, Yogi Berra, Allen Ginsburg, Harry Wolfson, Thoreau, Casey Stengel, The Lubavitcher Rebbe, Picasso, Moses, Einstein, Hugh Heffner, Socrates, Henry Ford, Lenny Bruce, Baba Ram Dass, Gandhi, Sir Edmund Hillary, Raymond Lubitz, Buddha, Frank Sinatra, Columbus, Freud, Norman Mailer, Ayn Rand, Baron Rothschild, Ted Williams, Thomas Edison, H. L. Mencken, Thomas Jefferson, Ralph Ellison, Bobby Fischer, Emma Goldman, Peter Kropotkin." Gabbe (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The economist Raymond Lubitz (1937-1984). He was Assistant and Associate Professor of Economics at Columbia University (from 1967-1973), a member of the Federal Reserve Board (1973-1984), and Chief of the FRB's World Payments Economic Activities Section (Division of International Finance). In 1971, he co-authored International Economics with Peter Kenen. Nanonic (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

One of the essays of Socratic Puzzles was dedicated to Raymond Lubitz, the economist. So it seems you are spot on. Thanks for the quick response! Gabbe (talk) 10:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Pansexuality and Cochin

How come the so called Pansexual pride flag is directly copied from the flag of the Kingdom of Cochin? Is this just a coincidence or is there any Indian spiritual inspiration for the new flag which has led to this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.77.222 (talk) 14:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It was conceived by JustJasper on Tumblr in 2011. Might be worth asking her there. Nanonic (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

No. According to the sources here at Wikipedia it was concieved in 2010. 83.251.77.222 (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Well that's odd because I got that info directly from the sources on the Wiki page itself. Even now, if you go to the original Tumblr page here it states that JustJasper created it in 2011. Nanonic (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Flags Of The World has different shades for the colours for Cochin [14].
Sleigh (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

No source make any claim to have the right colours, as far as I can see. 83.251.77.222 (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't find anything on LGBT topics and Hinduism either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.77.222 (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there any reliable source for even the existence of that Cochin flag anyway (let alone the precise shades)? I can see none. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

This site traces the flag (with the colours "red, yellow, and turquoise", rather than pink, yellow, and blue) back to a book entitled "Nations Without States", written by James Minahan in 1996. We don't have an article on Minahan, but his works are frequently used as references here. The site mentions that (for this book) Minahan does not cite any sources. Apart from that, all references are to the image on Commons and our article. Tevildo (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

But even the crwflags site says that Minahan is describing that tricolor as "the Keralan national flag", not the flag of Cochin. And the difference between red and pink is too big to make this count as the same flag anyway. Plus, we are talking about a state established in the 13th century; the idea that such a state (outside Europe) should have had a tricolor "flag" (of any color combination) falls into the category of "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence" (the tricolor format being a decidedly modern, European convention); the same goes for the European-style "coat of arms" given on the page. I'm removing both from the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Maiden names as middle names

When did it become established that married woman use their maiden name as middle names, e.g. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Michelle Robinson Obama? I'd never heard of this practice before, but it seems to have become common in recent years. Zacwill16 (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, the articles about middle names and married and maiden names are pretty poor about things like that, aren't they? My impression is that this sort of naming has been going on for some decades in the US, but has become more common there. But do I have a cite for that? Certainly not. --174.88.133.209 (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

It was certainly a common-ish practice in C19th Britain. It can be a useful aid to tracing family history. Mjroots (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Double-barrelled name has some relevant information. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Not quite the same thing, but having the mothers' maiden name as the childs' second forename is not unusual in Wales - my mother, her brother, and her sister all had "Jones" as their second forename (dating from around 1920). --Arwel Parry (talk) 00:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The same happened in my family (Scotland and Cornwall) - although my mother's middle name is MacKay, her grandmother's maiden name. Alansplodge (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to add WP:OR, but this might help direct further research. When my American parents (Mother from Georgia, father from New York) married in 1947, my mother took her maiden name as her middle name, and while she is no longer around to ask, my father says that it was not an uncommon practice at the time. -- ToE 00:03, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Not WP:RS, but this discussion suggests that it is a long standing Southern tradition. -- ToE 00:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

And this article says that about 25% of American women marrying today follow this practice, and that it is most common in the Northeast and the South. -- ToE 00:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

In my family (Northeastern US) the custom certainly goes back to at least the second half of 1800s ... All four of my Great-grand mothers took their maiden names as a middle name when they married. Blueboar (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Has a confederation of nations ever been stable when it has central law/monetary policy but not redistribution of resources?

Looking at the Greek crisis, I find myself doubting that the Greeks are part of Europe presently. I mean, they might be EU members and part of the euro and such, but when Europeans hear they have a 25% unemployment rate and 25% contraction of their economy, their response is typically to ask what the Greeks can cut to pay interest on debt, i.e. thinking of ways for money to flow out of Greece. This isn't how I'd expect one's fellow countryman to think. Fundamentally, in a federation of poor and rich countries, I'd expect that the rich will find ways to write law, monetary policy or whatever to suit their needs; this means that the poor countries must either receive some kind of free money, or else it is in their benefit to leave the union altogether. Only if the confederation were maintained by brutal force (Ireland in the UK), or else in name only, or maybe just a free trade pact or alliance, would it be possible to maintain, I'd think. And in practice, of course, to get NATO off the ground there was the Marshall Plan, and the U.S. likewise put money into Puerto Rico to encourage development, and West Germany poured a fortune into East Germany after unification as I understand it. Contrarily, the U.S. under the original Articles of Confederation, and quite probably the Confederate States of America, were what I would think of as unstable.

But is this any sort of valid observation, or can you point to a counterexample? Wnt (talk) 22:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Switzerland has very limited redistribution among its cantons, which, like European countries, also may differ in language. The main difference is a shared identity and a federal government with a small redistributive role. Marco polo (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

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, July 6, 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, July 6, 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)

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, July 6, 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, July 7, 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)

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 [15] 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.  :) Snow ^{let's rap} 23:24, 6 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 - Smith, Peter F (1974). The Dynamics of Urbanism. Routledge. ISBN 0-415-41738-4. Retrieved 7 July 2015. Tevildo (talk) 23:05, 6 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)

@Hack: My pleasure. @Viennese Waltz: I think Wikipedia: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 @DrKiernan: 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: [16] ( 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 wether 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)

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)

Vasily Surikov's Boyarynya Morozova, depicting the defiant Feodosia Morozova during her arrest. Her two raised fingers refer to the dispute about the proper way to make the sign of the cross.

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: [17]. 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)

• 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)

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)

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#Unprogrammed worship. 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)

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)

July 7

Did Bouguerau have English ancestry?

I ask because of his name (William). It is very much understandable for French people of English ancestry to have an English name (or the English version), for example Michael Lonsdale, William Waddington and Alfred Sisley. Bouguerau's article mentions nothing of Enlish ancestry and his surname is French. Is there any information about his mother? For, if she was English, she could have asked for an English name for her son (along with the French one, Adolphe). This is also reinforced by the fact that he preferred William to Adolphe, which may denote affection for his English mother.

Thank you in advance.--The Theosophist (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The French Wikipedia article does mention that he was "a des origines anglaises.", but provides no source. This book claims his father was English, but doesn't explain why his surname is French. Maybe his parents weren't married, or he or his father simply adopted a French name. - Lindert (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Large numbers of Britons have French surnames, Peter de la Billière springs to mind. Many of them are descended from Huguenot refugees who came here following the Edict of Fontainebleau and the resulting unpleasantness directed at Protestants. There were more refugees during the 18th and 19th centuries from various revolutions, of which the French seem to be especially fond. Alansplodge (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2015 (UTC)