Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 May 21

Humanities desk
< May 20	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 22 >

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

May 21

What is cultural assimilation?

What is cultural assimilation? Does this means that person or group is joining that ethnic group? Jet (talk) 02:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Cultural Assimilation is getting people of another culture to behave like the dominant culture. This has nothing to do with ethnicity. You cannot lose your ethnicity anymore than you can lose your skin color. For example: A Japanese ethnic person in Hawaii can behave like the dominant American culture and not able to speak a single word of Japanese language (except pronounce his own japanese name). 202.168.50.40 (talk) 02:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That's race, not necessarily ethnicity. With ethnicity, there needn't be a recognisable physiological difference, (i.e. Irish/English) - in that case, it'd be quite easy for someone to drop their previous culture and start self-identifying as the dominant ethnicity. Ninebucks (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

'ey brah, you go beach? We get slippers! Hawaiians have such a fun local dialect. It takes a while before you're no longer considered haole, but I've seen people of all ethnicities who were more "Hawaiian" than their original ethnicity anymore. It's a great example of assimilation. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Patterms, motifs and xxx

I am doing some translation work. I need information on the components of patterns in Art. I know that patterns are made up of motifs arranged in a structured and repetitive manner. However, there is something called xxx that make up the motifs. So, many xxx arranged make up a motif and many motifs make up a pattern. What is xxx? In Malay, the term is pola, which does not have the same meaning as pola in language learning.Thanking you in advance.Fahmi05 (talk) 08:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A rheme or focus? The piece of pattern which is repeated is a tesselation. Have you seen our article, Pattern? It refers to "element" which sounds closer somehow, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Element is what I would suggest, too. SaundersW (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

President Sfeir ?

Look at this : a Lebanese super archbishop is meeting with President Bush while Lebanon is in the middle of a political crisis. [1] At 87, the Patriarch has a huge political influence, to the point that he frequently meets with foreign leaders, and advises his countrymen in a time of confusion. Could he be considered to be a kind of de facto president ? 69.157.239.231 (talk) 09:24, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No. Sfeir is patriarch of the Maronite Christians, who constitute about one fifth of the population. His sectarian views (he said "Let the Muslim vote for Muslims, and let the Christians vote for Christians", he opposes marriages between Muslims and Christians, and he called for amnesty for the collaborators of the SLA) make him not very popular with the rest of the population. DAVID ŠENEK 12:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Lebanon has enough problems of competing authorities. The last thing it needs is another de facto president. Ninebucks (talk) 18:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Quote about rhythm in the arts other than music...

Someone - a philosopher? a poet? - made a comment that rhythm is essential to all the arts, not just music. Can anyone tell me who, and give me the quote?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't give you a name or reference so no real answer, but rhythm in visual art is a generally recognised and taught principle of visuality; given in a simplified glossary here[2] (not really interesting, but all I could find). Cubism is the clearest illustration off top of head – apart from the Greeks, could it have been said by a contemporary art analyst at the time, say Picasso or Braque? Julia Rossi (talk) 11:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In respect of visual art, the notion of rhythm is also important to Futurism and Vorticism. But the comment as quoted is probably too vague to have a distinct point of origin. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 11:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In De Musica Augustine defined rhythm as the basis of reason as conveyed by our senses: "We must therefore acknowledge, that in the pleasure of the senses, what pertains to reason is that in whch there is a certain rhythmic measure". He wrote several chapters on this, exemplifying rhythm in architecture, painting, and all temporal activity, be it visual, literal, spiritual, and so forth. Unfortunately, I only found a free Latin version of De Musica online. But I think you will find quite a bit there and in De Ordine too perhaps, if you can get your hands on a translation. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There is also a rhythm of storytelling which is a useful concept in the stage, movies and most other narrative arts. Bartlett Sher was on PBS talking about it last night, but I don't have any other references for you. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful, thanks, all - St Augustine may have been who I was thinking of, thanks yet again, Sluzzelin. Adambrowne666 (talk) 08:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Maitlands and the crown

Please help. Why did the Scottish Maitland family, later earls of Lauderdale, both support the Reformation and yet end as among the most enduring adherants of Mary Queen of Scots? Is it correct to describe John Maitland of Lethington, chancellor to James the sixth, as the Scottish Machiavelli? Need this information for a project. Thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.184.187 (talk) 11:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Supporting the reformation of the church and supporting the legal and hereditary ruler of your country are not mutually exclusive; people are inspired to do all sorts of things by faith, honour, loyalty, religious idealogy, political persuasion, or personal ambition. Understanding personal motives can be hard at this distance, but historians attempt to piece things together. It is worth reading Scottish Reformation for background. William Maitland of Lethington will tell you of Mary's Secretary of State, and show just how complex his support for both church and Queen were. While he supported reform of the church, he resisted the extremes of John Knox; he was also implicated in the murder of David Rizzio. His brother, John Maitland, 1st Lord Maitland of Thirlestane, was Chancellor of Scotland. Is he like Niccolò Machiavelli? Read those pages and see what you think. Gwinva (talk) 00:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

France and Hanoverian succession

How did changing relations with France after the Glorious Revolution of 1688 contribute to the Hanoverian succession in Britain in 1714? (Yes this is an assignment but I'm really stuck!) I believe this question has something to do with William III's dislike of Louis XIV and how he fought him in the war of the league of Augsburg and the war of Spanish Succession. I think that the question is getting at how France crumbled in this period and how this removed the threat of France helping restore the exiled Jacobites. Any suggestions would be great and please tell me if you think I'm approaching the question at the wrong angle. Thanks Richie1001 (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's often forgotten that King James II was the son of Henrietta Maria of France and thus a cousin of King Louis XIV. When James fled, his friend and cousin Louis, arguably the most powerful monarch in Europe, became his principal supporter, with the aim of restoring him (or, after his death in 1701, his son James Francis Edward Stuart) as the Catholic monarch of a friendly power. As well as supporting James in the Williamite war in Ireland, Louis gave him the use of the Château of Saint-Germain-en-Laye (pictured), which became the seat of the Jacobite court in exile. Of course, this was a period of war between England and France (see Nine Years' War and War of the Spanish Succession), and James and his supporters were allied with the Catholic enemies of James's Protestant daughters, Mary II and Anne, and Mary's husband, William III. This, by the way, was the most immediately significant outcome of the Glorious Revolution, shifting England from a period of good relations with France under Charles II and James II to an alignment with the Dutch Republic against France. When Louis settled for peace by signing the Treaty of Utrecht in 1713, one of the Treaty's stipulations was that France was to expel James's son and heir, whom Louis had proclaimed James III, from France. After the failure of the Jacobite rising of 1715, in which the Stuarts had little real support from the continent, the Jacobite court settled in Rome. Xn4 17:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And now, of course, your question... the Jacobite contention for the thrones of the three kingdoms was deeply divisive in all of them and was seen as a terrible threat to future peace and security, but so long as James Francis Edward Stuart held to the Roman Catholic faith, and so long as he was living in great state in France and closely allied to the French, with whom the three kingdoms were at war, there was really little alternative to sticking with the Act of Settlement 1701. In beginning our article on the Old Pretender's sister Louisa Maria Teresa Stuart, I included this interesting comment on her death in 1712. William Legge, 1st Earl of Dartmouth, wrote of the Princess's death: "The queen [Anne] shewed me a letter wrote in the king of France's own hand, upon the death of her sister; in which there was the highest character that ever was given to any princess of her age. Mr. Richard Hill came straight from the earl of Godolphin's... to me with the news, and said it was the worst that ever came to England. I asked him why he thought so. He said it had been happy if it had been her brother; for then the queen might have sent for her and married her to prince George, who could have no pretensions during her own life; which would have pleased every honest man in the kingdom, and made an end of all disputes for the future."

Richard Hill of Hawkstone was probably out on a tangent with this thought, but it will give you some flavour of how informed people like him thought. Xn4 17:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help but I would like to ask you however do you think the changing relations with France after 1688, (that is going from a Anglo-French alliance under James II into an anti-French Anglo-Dutch alliance under William III as you explained) contributed to George of hanover becoming King in 1714? Do you think I should be talking about the war of league of Augsburg AKA nine years war and the war of spanish succession (as this brought about the demise of France) in my assignment? I'm quite confused as you can tell! In case you are in need of clarification the wording of the question is 'To what extent were changing relations with France mainly responsible for the Hanoverian Succession?' Thank you I can assure you your help is much appreciated! Richie1001 (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an awkward question, but yes, you need to refer to both wars. The main reason for the changing relations with France was the fall of King James II in what we now call the Glorious Revolution. The spark which kindled the Glorious Revolution was that James II had acquired a new son and heir who, with two Roman Catholic parents, was sure to be brought up in that faith, so the Anglicans and dissenters could no longer look forward to a Protestant succession. Although the 'Glorious Revolution' is so called, the name of Revolution was given to it post facto, the immediate reality of it being a successful Dutch invasion of England, led by William of Orange and his wife Mary (James II's eldest daughter and recently displaced heir). Why were the Dutch willing to spend a huge amount in equipping a force to invade England? In theory, to come to the assistance of English Protestants. But what was also in it for them was the prospect of gaining a strong new ally against France. The Jacobites, in rallying around James II in exile in France, who was allied to Louis XIV, necessarily became counter-revolutionaries. So long as war between Great Britain and France continued, the alignment of the Jacobites made the Hanoverian succession necessary to preserve the strategic status quo, and of course the careers of all the leading public men of the three British kingdoms, not to mention the Protestant ascendancy itself. High stakes, indeed. Xn4 21:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

European Left Pro-Iran ?

In France, the Réseau Voltaire is known for its links with the Hezbollah. Many active members of the Socialiste Party and the German Social-democrat Party are known for having a stance of neutrality in the Middle East conflicts involving Shia activists. Is their a significant sector in European public opinion whom, because its either anti-american and/or anti-zionist politics, would grudingly support the so-called Mollah Régime in Tehran ? 69.157.238.199 (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Depends what one infers by "grudgingly supports". I think most people in the world "grudgingly support" any regime as long as they do not start an unprovoked war with anyone else. But if you just mean whether there is any significant active support here for the current regime in Iran, whether from the left or right then I think the answer is no. DanielDemaret (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It is important not to confuse being against attacking Iran militarily and being "pro-Iran". Many on the left in both Europe and the United States think that it would be a mistake to attack Iran militarily not only because of the lives that would be lost, but also because the attack would be likely to fail and/or provoke a larger and very damaging regional conflict. On the other hand, most on the left in both Europe and the United States are critical of Iran's Shia theocracy and would prefer a political system that offered more democracy and more equality for women and ethnic and religious minorities. Most leftists, however, don't think that a military attack on Iraq is likely to bring a more democratic system to Iran; on the contrary, some have argued, it would likely strengthen the regime now in power. There is a difference between opposing a military attack and supporting a repressive regime. Marco polo (talk) 16:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as an European, I'm hardly a big fan of Iran. Their human rights situation, just to pick one aspect of their society, is appalling. But I'm certainly not going to be happy about an attack against them, particularly by the United States. There are numerous reasons for this, but frankly, the last time the US took such an action, it was taken on blatantly false premises (those weapons of mass destruction have yet to turn up) and it's one that has resulted in vast civilian casualties. I'm not saying that Saddam Hussein was a nice guy, obviously; the guy was a human turd. But as our article on the Casualties of the Iraq War states, we're talking about a million -- a million -- dead people here, the vast majority of whom are civilians. That's a body count that reaches a level so ridiculous that even if these estimates were exaggerated by, oh, 50%, it would still be about a tenth of the entire population of my home country. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that this is not the kind of a thing that discourages interest in fanatical terrorism. I don't mean to soapbox here, and I apologize if this comes off like that; my point is that, as an European, as much as I dislike Iran, I have absolutely no faith that the people living there wouldn't get screwed up just as badly as the people in Iraq, and I think it would just make the overall situation that much worse. To me, and to most people I know who share this view (and I know a bunch), it's not really a question of being anti-American or pro-Iran. That's how a lot of people want to frame it, but it's not at all what the argument is about. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 05:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Before the current Iraq war, anyone who refuted the various arguments for going to war was painted as supporting Saddam's regime (example). I don't know about Europe, but the same line of reasoning is brewing in the States now (though a Democratic presidency would end it, I imagine). --Sean 17:40, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly an element of the left that is sympathetic to anyone who is against the Western establishment, including the Iranian regime. I read that one of the women behind the "no nukes" movement in the UK in the 80s is now supporting Iran's "right" to nuclear energy. During the Israel-Hezbollah war, there were leftists in the UK, as well as Canada and the US, who chanted pro-Hezbollah slogans and at least a few with Hezbollah flags and/or shirts. These are the same people who support Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Smoking in Public vs. Kissing in Public

On the basis of anti-smoking laws, could a governement decide to limit other questionable public pratices such as swearing in public, kissing in public, hugging in public ? 69.157.238.199 (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Establishing the equivalent of secondhand smoke for kissing would be an interesting challenge. — Lomn 15:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I really doubt any sane government would ban hugging in public.... That being said, yes, a government could very well limit other public practices like swearing, kissing, and even hugging in public, but things like that will probably not go very well. But unless swearing, kissing, and hugging causes everyone undeniable harm, there's probably not much basis to go on. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 16:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

At least in the united states, although smoking bans may be motivated by social stigma, they are justified under OSHA regulations. So unless you can argue that public displays of affection are detrimental to health, no, governments can't use smoking laws to set this kind of precedent. Of course, there have actualy been a slew of arrests in the united states for public swearing, particularly in florida. I think because it was performed in the presence of minors the cursers were charged for corruption of youth or something stupid and unwarranted like that. I'm fairly certain that some are all of the acts you suggested are illegal in a variety of religious states like turkey and iran. --Shaggorama (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Note: Turkey is very secular and has no such laws, before we start a conflict here :-) Fribbler (talk) 18:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that some (we could even say "many") U.S. state and local laws prohibit nudity. If that's not covered under first amendment rights, can it be argued that public displays of affection are? Of course, anti-nudity laws are widespread and have been well established for a long time. Even if it would be difficult to challenge them now it seems like similar laws against the public display of affection might be very difficult to put into place. Of course, there may be such laws in some places; there are some very weird laws out there at all different levels of governance (see sodomy laws in the United States, for example). --Prestidigitator (talk) 04:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Singapore has outlawed spitting in pubic and chewing gum in public. Corvus cornix_talk 21:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I had the impression that Singapore banned spitting on the streets for public hygeine reasons (?) but don't know justification for not chewing gum. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Julia Rossi, chewed gum is one of the most difficult substances to clean up, and it immediately attracts other dirt on top it it. Prior to drying, gum gets caught on the bottom of shoes and under tires, spreading it even further. When gum is left on the ground, on the street, under desks, chairs, on subway poles, walls, etc, it's ugly and filthy.

The costs associated with cleaning up discarded gum are astronomical, coupled with the labor-intensiveness of it.

I have been to both Singapore and Hong Kong, and when compared with other large cities in many parts of the world, these two places had some of the cleanest streets, sidewalks, subways, etc that I have ever seen. One large part of that cleanliness comes from an attitude of respect for others, respects for property, personal/collective pride and highly-effective home training. The other part is their governments' stand against littering, graffiti, vandalism, etc. I hope this has been helpful. Magnet For Knowledge (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

? I left out the word "their" for their justification for it, is all, not implying it's okay to chew all the gum you can so that it's the blob that ate New York or such. Thanks for all the extra stuff that I am aware of, which doesn't mean it's banned in other countries, just expensive to deal with. So for the Singapore thing, I suspect there's more to it which I personally do not want to go into because it's not about the question, just a reflection on the post immediately above –– the ability for a government to enforce such a ban in that context seems relatively rare across the board and indicates the political spectrum point inhabited by the Singapore government. I grew up in Singapore btw, but thanks for your efforts to educate and inform me out of the blue like that, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:00, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course, Singapore is missing out on this Bubblegum Alley Adambrowne666 (talk) 19:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I'd never ehard of that. that's pretty disgusting. Way to go Cali. --Shaggorama (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

In December last year South Africa passed legislation under the Sexual Offences Act that prohibits kissing in public between people under 16, among a slew of other offences. Of course this is hardly likely to be enforceable. Zunaid©® 08:44, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Work as a librarian

I am currently in the process of finishing my BA in history and then was thinking of pursuing a masters in library science and was wondering what it is like being a librarian - what do the daily duties include, what sort of jobs can you get a library science degree and how is the job market? Would you recommend being a librarian, what is the good of the job? --Baalhammon (talk) 15:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Baalhammon, we have a Librarian article. Here's a light view of the pros and cons of being a public librarian[3] and then there's kinds of libraries: government, institutional, school, special interest librarians (law, medicine, art etc) and university librarians; there's this[4] to tell you about getting work experience in libraries while you're a student and this on google[5] to pick from on librarian careers. Hope this helps, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:26, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I took a postgraduate qualification in library science, although I didn't end up going into the profession. My advice would be to try and specialise as much as possible in a particular area that interests you. That is where the best paid, and probably the most interesting jobs lie. The profession has changed markedly since the advent of the internet. Nowadays, people can get all sorts of information for themselves that they used to rely on librarians to get for them. So librarians are having to pick up more specialist skills (including IT skills) in order to survive. And by the way, just in case you're not aware, you're not supposed to post the same question twice on different desks. Another answer was given here. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No! I read an article on the internet somewhere saying that being a librarian is one of the most stressful jobs - seriously. I expect its the crushing boredom of repeatedly doing the same thing with book after book. See if you can get some kind of job as a assistant librarian to see if you like it. 80.0.107.160 (talk) 01:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Jesuit Power in Washington

It is often said that Washington is a city which is strongly influenced by the Jesuitic tradition, most notably at Georgetown and American Univerity. Is it true that many of the reactionary Neo-Conservative Washington politicians are in fact Jesuitees bent on realising the social, political and revolutionary ideas of Pedro Arrupe, the famous Jesuit ? 69.157.238.199 (talk) 16:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

No. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Second that. But really they are all Jesuits Fribbler (talk) 18:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You might find this map interesting if you want to know about religious influence in the US.

American was a Methodist, not Catholic, institution, and has been basically secular since at least the 60s. You may be thinking of the Catholic University of America, which is a Catholic, albeit not Jesuit, institution. Georgetown is hardly a "neo-con" institution; its faculty includes or has included Anthony Lake, Madeline Albright and Tom Daschle. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Gibbon on Apollonius of Tyana

In David Potter's recent book, I think entitled "Emperors of Rome," there is a quote from Gibbon on the mystical seer Apollonius of Tyana, saying that he may have been a religious visionary or a complete nutter, and we can't tell which. Does anyone know where this can be found? Is it in the Decline and Fall? Regards, and t.i.a., 203.221.127.102 (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

You can search some of Gibbon's works online – doing so yielded this footnote from The Decline and Fall: "the fables related of Apollonius of Tyana, were frequently opposed to the miracles of Christ; though I agree with Dr. Lardner, (see Testimonies, vol. iii. p. 253, 352,) that when Philostratus composed the life of Apollonius, he had no such intention." The link is here. – is this what you're looking for? WikiJedits (talk) 20:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed from the The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: "Vopiscus (in Hist. August. p. 217) gives us an authentic letter and a doubtful vision of Aurelian. Apollonius of Tyana was born about the same time as Jesus Christ. His life (that of the former) is related in so fabulous a manner by his disciples, that we are at a loss to discover whether he was a sage, an impostor, or a fanatic." That's the whole of footnote r in Volume I, Chapter XI. Xn4 20:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

That "that of the former" is pure Gibbon; he must have smiled to himself a lot as he wrote. Deor (talk) 16:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to you all. I can't believe I would have missed the humour in that if Deor hadn't pointed it out :). 203.221.126.247 (talk) 08:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Loaning your campaign a few million

What's the difference between donating to a campaign vs. loaning to a campaign and then that campaign defaulting?

If I understand right, there are limits to how much an individual can donate to a campaign. But what prevents an individual from loaning millions to a campaign even when there is no guarantee that the campaign is ever going to be able to pay you back? Isn't that a bit of a loophole? Particularly if you are loaning millions to your own campaign? — Sam 17:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Donations come from people outside the campaign. The limit on those (in the US; I'm assume that's what this is referring to) is $2300. You can only loan to your own campaign. That money comes from just your regular bank account. This makes it so you can use your own money to campaign, and I don't believe there is a loan limit. That's basically how the Romney campaign worked. He didn't fundraise well, but he's a bazilionaire. Paragon12321 (talk) 04:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

"You can only loan to your own campaign." I don't believe that's correct. After all, the Clinton campaign is about $20 million in debt, with about $10 million coming from her own pocket. Therefore, $10 million is coming from somewhere else. — Sam 17:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, surely that other ten million bucks could be on credit? I may be completely off base here, but if her campaign is, say, renting office space or whatever, it could well be that they have made an agreement that they will pay for it later, with the assumption that they will either cover that with future campaign donations, or, if that money never materializes, with Senator Clinton's own money. What with her husband apparently having earned around $40 million from public speaking in 2007 alone and the senator herself having made pretty good money from her autobiography (the advance alone was $8 million, and it's been selling like hotcakes all over the world), it wouldn't be at all unreasonable to assume that regardless of whether she wins or loses, the Clintons are going to be good for it. (It's not like these are their only sources of income, either.) A lot of organizations end up with very generous due dates all the time for various reasons; I don't see any practical reason why a presidential campaign couldn't do the same. Unless, of course, there's some law that forbids that. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but let's forget Sen. Clinton for the moment. I, Joe Schmoe, run for president. You, my friend, want to donate a lot of money to me, but aren't allowed to donate more than $2300.

However, you own office space. You let me use, on credit, $10 million worth of office space and hours. My campaign fails, I drop out, and default on my loan.

Haven't you now, essentially, donated $10 million to my campaign? — Sam 15:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose so. In any case, the law would probably require us to make a clear contract that determines what you are expected to pay me for the services and/or office space I provide, and even if the law doesn't require that per se, you would want that anyway, because otherwise it could be construed as an illegal donation. (For the same reason, I'm not going to give $10 million worth of support to you for $10 000 -- I can make you a good deal, but not an unreasonable one, unless we both want to get in legal trouble.)

Now, seeing as I'm your friend and support your campaign, I'm willing to let you take your time with the payment, but ten million clams is a lot of money, so I probably wouldn't give you the credit in the first place unless I knew that you're good for it. But let's say that I was an idiot and knew that you don't have that kind of money, but made the deal anyway. This very interesting Slate article explains that a under campaign finance law, a campaign needs to pay up what it owes, unless the candidate -- in this case, you -- is the one who's being owed the money. This means that you would need to go out and get $10 million worth of donations from people who have yet to donate the $2300 maximum to you, or loan the campaign the money it needs to pay me what it owes me. You could go out collecting donations even after election day -- and man, that's got to be humiliating. If I was willing to go for it, you could even say that hey, you're running again in four years, so would please I let you pay me back the money from the next campaign's donations? And since I support you, I might say yes, but legally, you would apparently do have to pay me back that ten million bucks, one way or another, sooner or later.

Unless you actually were completely unable to raise the ten million dollars either in donations or from your own pocket, in which case your campaign might actually go bankrupt. Most serious presidential candidates in the United States tend to be so loaded that they're going to be able to pay off debts like that -- if not right off the bat, then at least in the coming years, bit by bit. But apparently you can't just say "oh, it's my campaign's problem, and I'm not running any more, so that's that." Nope, if your campaign owes, in the end, you owe. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see what you're saying. Particularly the idea that if the loan is fishy, then it could be called illegal. If you "loan" my campaign $10 million while knowing that there's no way that I'm good for it, or if you let me use $10 million worth of services for $10 thousand, then someone might start asking questions. I would also assume that a loan to a campaign would have to start accruing interest? Otherwise I could loan you $10 million, you earn a few thousand on interest from it and give me back the $10 million, and now I have essentially donated a few extra thousand to your campaign. — Sam 16:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea how interest works out here, but I would imagine that your average campaign doesn't leave the money sitting around long enough for any interest worth a mention to be collected. Also, I think magnitudes come into play here -- unless there's reason to suspect deliberate foul play, I don't think anyone cares about a couple of thousand dollars one way or another in interest, as long as the play with the $10 million is properly and honestly accounted for. I doubt there's anything illegal or questionable about that; if you give me the money, I can use it on my campaign as I see fit -- as long as I don't take out those thousands of dollars of interest and use them on something other than legitimate campaign expenses, it should be fine. After all, it's not like it's your decision or under your power to give me the extra money the interest may produce. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

tax avoidance

Someone told me that in Australia, people say that if you earn over $1 million a year and pay any tax at all, you don't know how to manage money. How is it that people on such large incomes can avoid tax so easily? What, in basic substance, are the key loopholes, or types of loopholes? thanks in advance. 203.221.127.102 (talk) 17:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if it comes from the late Kerry Packer who reputedly paid 1% tax and believed you shouldn't donate unwittingly to the government through taxes (as in not paying any more than you have to). I'd like to know what his accounting bill was, but that's probably written off as well. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

PS, found this from the Guardian[6] which shows that one of the loopholes is connections. Packer's funeral was even at the taxpayer's (non-millionaires?) expense. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Two of the biggest tricks used by the rich are offshore investment (which in certain circumstances can be part of an illegal tax avoidance scam, as many high-profile Australians recently found out), and avoiding actually having much "actual" income, instead getting most of what you need from money invested in your company (where the company tax rate is much lower than the income tax rate) - so technically you don't own that yacht, the company does, although you may have to pay fringe benefits tax to keep it. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 06:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Tax avoidance, of course, is perfectly lawful, and if governments leave such loopholes it would be astonishing if they weren't well used. As Lord Clyde, Lord President of the Court of Session, said in Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services and Ritchie - v. - IRC (1929) 14 TC 754, "No man in the country is under the smallest obligation, moral or otherwise, to arrange his legal relations to his business or property so as to enable the Inland Revenue to put the largest possible shovel into his stores." Xn4 10:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Tax systems are generally unfair and a mess because the way they evolve, governments fiddle with the systems but do no overhaul them. The main aim of governments is to keep the economy on a steady keel. Meanwhile the rich are willing to use their money to buy political influence, which means that politicians are unwilling to close loopholes, or worse willing to create them. They are also able to employ accountants whose job it is to exploit loopholes. Tiddly pop (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There are two general types of tax avoidance "loopholes" - classification and timing.

A "classification" loophole is really the government's own fault. For whatever reason (public good, responding to lobbyists, etc), the government allows different incomes and expenses to be treated differently. Some schemes contrive to make one type of income look like or become another type, so that it fits under a concession. For example, to take advantage of agricultural subsidies, a scheme might invest your money in an agricultural scheme, which, if properly structured, is not much riskier than whatever you were doing it before. However, because the income is now agricultural income, you might get advantageous tax treatment. The same principle operates for trusts, and more remotely, legitimate off-shore schemes (domestic income reclassified as offshore income).

A "timing" loophole uses the fact that most tax systems try to match up income and expenses, and that there are differential tax rates on different income brackets. Let's say you are earning $200,000 this year, but know you will probably be earning less next year. The progressive tax system means (say) you pay 30% tax on your first $100,000, but 50% tax on your later $100,000, then it would be great for you if you can declare that later $100,000 next year instead of this year - on average, you might end up paying less tax. If you set up, for example, some types of business investment schemes, you might be able to recognise your expenses now, but defer recognition of your income until later.

Note that these are all more-or-less legitimate loopholes if done properly, and take advantage of favourable provisions in the tax law. By contrast, not declaring your income, or money laundering, are illegal and operate outside the scope of the tax system itself. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for those answers, especially PalaceGuard's. It still isn't completely clear how they get away with it, but now I understand the general idea. The "timing" one sounds like they would eventually have to pay the piper anyway. 203.221.126.247 (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Old accountant's joke: What's the difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion? Five years. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

World Heritage site?

Which was the first World Heritage site? 62.136.206.143 (talk) 17:57, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

See this. Seems that there were a number of them on the first list (I had suspected they wouldn't start with just one). Also see World Heritage Site. Fribbler (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Distribution Restriction

This question was originally posted at WP:RD/S. I have moved it here in the hopes that you folks may have some input The comment in question can be found at the bottom of page 4 of this document. --Shaggorama (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

In the first reference sited by the article on spinosad there is the following statement "DO NOT DISTRIBUTE THIS TECHNICAL BULLETIN IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK." What is the reason behind this statement? 71.100.14.205 (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That is really odd! I'd say it's a matter of law in New York State. Perhaps the legal eagles at the humanities desk could help? I for one would really like to know. Fribbler (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a bit strange - I checked, and spinosad is listed as a permitted pesticide by the NYS Dept of Environmental Conservation (here's the document (warning - large PDF). -Bmk (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

My guess is some of the claims, or 'information' contained in the bulletin are illegal under NY State law, or that something which should be in such a bulletin according to New York state law, is not Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Makes sense. It might be interesting to call Dow AgroSciences and see if you can reach someone who knows. Or send a letter to their legal department, maybe. --Anonymous, 21:00 UTC, May 22, 2008.

Ravel had three arms?

File:Ravel - Pavane for a Dead Princess (impossible part).jpg

Excerpt in question

Near the end of Pavane pour une infante défunte for solo piano, there's a part that I can't figure out how to finger, because it seems impossible to play as written. Did Ravel have three arms or what? Could an experienced pianist please give me a note-by-note fingering of the first few beats here? How the heck do you play it? —Keenan Pepper 20:18, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the top line (the soprano line) is the song itself. The parts are clearly separate, so it's either what the singer sings or a duet. I'm a grade-8 pianist and I know I could never play that! It's like a full score to aid the pianist, as pianists don't "count" like a violinist does, for example. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm an amateur pianist, so don't trust anything I say, but I think that you can extend the arpeggiated chords in the bass clef to include the lower notes in the treble. You may want to ask User:Antandrus, since I believe he has a music major and is a professional pianist. bibliomaniac15 22:42, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The only truly "impossible" bit (except for pianists with pathologically wide hand spans, such as Rachmaninoff) is the opening chord. I'd regard the D in the treble clef as part of the arpeggiated chord in the bass, and play it with the left hand with the second finger crossing over. Don't be in a rush to play the arpeggio in mathematically strict time. The rest is manageable as written, although it needs practice. The trick with practising any new piece is to play it very slowly, even uncomfortably slowly, at first, and gradually build up to the appropriate speed. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Jack's right on, as I'd expect.  :) Since the first chord is arpeggiated anyway, you don't have to play the treble clef D and G simultaneously, even if you're a freak like me who has huge hands. (11th is my limit). I'd play it exactly as Jack would. Antandrus (talk) 23:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment, Antandrus. (My limit is a 10th, so I guess that lets me off the "freak" hook. You're on your own there, pal.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 02:48, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a recording of the piece at Pavane pour une infante défunte. The passage in question occurs at about 4'4", and the pianist seems to play it pretty much as Jack says. I suppose an alternative would be to arpeggiate the D and G with the right hand. The article also mentions that there's piano roll recording by Ravel himself that is available on CD. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Russian religion before Christianity?

Can someone tell me about the religious beliefs and practices of the Russian people before the majority of them were converted to Christianity in the ninth century, or direct me to articles about such? I'm looking for more detail (e.g. what specific gods were worshipped? what types of practices were there?) than one-word answers like "paganism". —Lowellian (reply) 21:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Paganism? :-) This article:Slavic mythology has a large section on pre-christian religion in the slavic countries Fribbler (talk) 21:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That's what I'm looking for. —Lowellian (reply) 21:26, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Chernobog and Perun. Corvus cornix_talk 21:33, 21 May 2008 (UTC)