Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:57, 3 March 2021

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/H

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.

February 24

History of Zunyi -- sources?

Hey, I've been trying to work on the Zunyi article and been trying to find an in-depth history of the city. Unfortunately, information seems to be rather sparse? Britannica has a bit of information, but I'm having trouble finding some deeper, concrete information. I've tried looking on Baidu, but I just really see Baidu Baike and Zhihu answers, and a lack of reliable sources. Could anyone help point me in the right direction? Maybe I'm missing something? The sources can be in English or Chinese. Thank you! LittleCuteSuit (talk) 00:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried investigating the sources/information on the Chinese Wikipedia? They aren't necessarily the best either, but I think it might provide a helpful starting point as you research. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great idea! Thanks for suggesting that. I looked at the Chinese article and it has some good material as a whole, and the history section looks similar to what I saw on sites like Zhihu, so I think it's proabably accurate (wish they cited their sources though, haha). At the very least this'll provide a good starting point, like you said. Thanks! LittleCuteSuit (talk) 05:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Poet Zheng Zhen (1806-1864) and the Rise of Chinese Modernity is an English language source which has some historical background about Zunyi (from p. 45). Alansplodge (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also The Legend of Zunyi, a 2013 article in China Today. Alansplodge (talk) 11:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! LittleCuteSuit (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bronx Supreme Court/Supreme Court of USA

Does the State Supreme Court in the Bronx have the same symbol/logo of the SCOTUS? If so can this logo be used in a court-case article on Wikipedia? SenatorLEVI 03:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't use the same symbol. Bronx uses the NYS seal, when needed. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. SenatorLEVI 03:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, and bear in mind that in the state of New York, "Supreme Court" means trial-level court. It is very unlikely that a NY State Supreme Court case should have an article about the case itself (as opposed to the incident that gave rise to the case). 69.174.144.79 (talk) 04:13, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with that, I was browsing through Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Law, and found People v. Tabitha Walrond with the same court I asked about. It has several sources and can easily be used to make an article. I dropped it because I'm unsure on how to make a court-case based article due to my inexperience. SenatorLEVI 05:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If an article should be made about that case, it should probably be entitled Death of Tyler Walrond. See WP:CRIME. Unless there's some particularly important aspect of case law here, it shouldn't have a standalone article about the litigation—and it being a relatively recent (i.e., last 100 or so years) state trial court decision, it's not precedent-setting and unlikely to be cited for anything really, and therefore isn't going to be important case law. Also, I should note that the case cited at the requested articles list is the appellate division case... which was essentially a summary affirmation. It's not a notable case on its own, whoever put the case and that blurb at the requested articles page is flat out wrong. There are not any sources listed there of the type necessary to justify an article about the case itself rather than about the crime. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, however it is an important case of that time IMO. Its been mentioned in multiple news websites/papers and also gained a lot of attention. It also highlights the failure of doctors at that time to inform the mother properly, it could also be linked to racism against black people at that time IMO. Multiple sources state negligence of Medicare as well as doctors. I've found enough material to make it a good article. However its not something I'd write any time soon due to the difference in format. SenatorLEVI 07:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All that has to do with the crime and not the case. An article on caselaw exists because the caselaw is significant. The event leading to the case may not be notable (and often is not). All the coverage you mention deals with the underlying crime, public policy that led to the crime, and racial inequities that may have led to the crime. There's nothing different here regarding "format" than any other crime article. Seriously. Look at articles about crimes and look at articles about case law. Try and figure out which of those two pigeonholes this subject belongs in. I guarantee you, the answer is crime. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to other caselaw articles this one has significant coverage, both in the number of reliable sources as well as information online. The event to the case is notable, there is enough buildup before the actual case (for a lack of a better description). Other parts like Court background is also present as well as media coverage. When I said format I meant compared to the articles that I have written. Due to my inexperience and the fact that I have only written 4 articles something like a caselaw article with the info-box, specified lawyers and judges, laws applied, citations, court membership, etc would be hard for me. Regardless I am not going to be writing this article until I think I am ready to do so, or if someone else has. SenatorLEVI 10:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All of the coverage is of the events. Not the law. I don't know how I can be clearer about this. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The event is what the article would be about. There's nothing else to be clear on. SenatorLEVI 02:54, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Viewers of the Law & Order TV franchise would be familiar with the way "Supreme Court" is used in New York City. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, it's not just New York that's like that. Here in Ontario, Canada, for about 100 years starting in 1881, the "Supreme Court of Ontario" included both a trial-level court for important cases and the Ontario Court of Appeal.

P.S. Could you lose the bright colors in the signature? They're kind of distracting.

--142.112.149.107 (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like ketchup, mustard and bleu cheese. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it, probably long overdue. SenatorLEVI 05:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See New York Supreme Court for background and Bronx County Courthouse for the court. Nyttend (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, while the Judiciary of New York (state) has a court structure similar to the Federal Judiciary, the terminology doesn't match. This table should help clarify:

Court structures of NY vs. US
State of New York	United States
New York Court of Appeals	Supreme Court of the United States
New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division	United States courts of appeals (commonly called "circuit courts")
New York Supreme Court	United States district court

There are other courts outside this structure, since they don't operate in perfect parallel. For example, New York also has county- and city-level courts for hearing minor civil and criminal cases; no equivalent exists at the federal level. Similarly, the U.S. has subject-matter specific trial (district-level) and appeals (circuit-level) courts that have no New York equivalence. --Jayron 32 13:07, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Canadian system looks to be modelled on the English one. In 1873 the various courts (e.g. Court of Queen's Bench) which dispensed law and the Court of Chancery (which dispensed equity) were merged into three divisions of the High Court (Queen's Bench, Chancery, and Probate, Divorce and Admiralty). All branches dispensed both law and equity. The High Court and Court of Appeal together formed the Supreme Court of Judicature, and the final appeal court was the House of Lords. The system lasted till 1999 when the appellate function of the House of Lords was transferred to a new Supreme Court. 95.150.9.67 (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

English royal non-assent under the Stuarts

Under the Stuarts, when the monarch did not grant royal assent, what was the process: did the monarch outright reject the bill in some way (comparable to the US President's veto today), or did the monarch simply ignore it, or were both processes used? Nyttend (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Disappearance of the veto in England. Yes, the Stuart monarchs could and did refuse their assent, but they could also give their assent and then invoke their power of dispensation which suspended the legislation. Alansplodge (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but it doesn't address my question at all. Let me rephrase it: during this era, if the monarch chose not to grant royal assent, would he (1) outright reject the bill, (2) merely ignore it, or (3) sometimes reject it and sometimes ignore it? Nyttend (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to me as a very different question; the House of Stuart ruled only until 1714, which precedes "this era" by a considerable gap. The rephrased question is too hypothetical to be answerable. At the very least, one should consider the cause of the monarch's reluctance to grant assent. Is it displeasure because the bill, as presented, grossly and wantonly impinges on generally accepted human rights? Or does it severely curtail whatever rights the monarch still possesses? Surely, the extent to which the bill was supported in parliament and is supported by the general populace will be a factor. One can only speculate what might happen, and then one person's opinion or prediction will be as baseless as the next one's. --Lambiam 12:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What do you men, speculation? If records exist, anyone familiar with them could answer the question. During part of this era, the monarch ruled absolutely, and during the rest of the period, as Alansplodge's link demonstrates, vetoes were still an accepted power of the monarch; that's a good deal of power. The concept of "generally accepted human rights" didn't develop until centuries after this era, and an appeal to the general populace is ridiculous generations before the Reform Act 1832. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that the two of you are using "this era" to mean different things. Lambiam is taking it to mean "the era we're currently sitting in" and Nyttend is taking it to mean "the era under discussion". You should probably first come to an agreement on which definition you want to use before continuing your argument. --Jayron 32 12:57, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The actual procedure of assent used before the 19th century (which is perhaps what you are asking) is described here:

"When there is no business that requires immediate dispatch, the king usually waits till the end of the session, or at least till a certain number of bills are ready for him, before he declares his royal pleasure. When the time is come, the king in the same state with which he opened it; and while he is seated on the throne, a clerk, who has a list of the bills, gives, or refuses, as he reads, the royal assent. When the royal assent is given to a public bill, the clerk says, le roy le veut. If the bill be a private bill, he says, soit fait comme il est desiré. If the bill has subsidies for its object, he says, le roy remercie ses loyaux sujets, accepte leur bénévolence, et aussi le veut. If the king does not think proper to assent to the bill , the clerk says, Le roy s'avisera, which is a mild way of giving a refusal". (Le roy s'avisera might be translated as "The king will advise upon it".)

The Constitutional History of England by Henry Hallam. Alansplodge (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One phrase in the Constitution

Courtesy link - Article One of the United States Constitution#Clause 2: Qualifications of Members DuncanHill (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

US Constitution, Article I, Section 2, para 2 says at the start and the end of this paragraph "No Person shall be a Representative ... and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen"

I don't understand it. What does it mean? AboutFace 22 (talk) 20:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't live in State X, you cannot be elected as a representative for State X. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's written like a double negative. It means you must reside in the state you are representing. RudolfRed (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first negative does not cover the statement, second does, however, altogether it sounds like you cannot live in the state where you want to be elected. Strange. AboutFace 22 (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The archaic uses of "shall" make this harder to understand, Rephrasing this in two steps: (1) No one can be a Representative if they are not, when elected, an Inhabitant of that State in which they were chosen. (2) If someone is not a resident of the State in which they were chosen at the time of their election, they cannot be a Representative. Note that the double negative is maintained. --Lambiam 22:17, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are times when I wish they had stopped after “No person shall be a Representative” (same with: “Congress shall pass no law”). 😉 Blueboar (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with the US Constitution and weird use of commas? The Second Amendment is probably the most notorious use, but as you note, in this case it seems to reverse the intended meaning of one of the second requirement. The actual text of the clause is "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.", which parsed logically looks as though it means:

You cannot be a Representative if any of the following apply:

You are under 25 years of age
You have been a citizen for seven years
You do not reside in the state for which you have been chosen.

I think they really need to drop the first comma, or put another "not" before "been a citizen". (Or stop using the weird construction with double negatives and just say "a Representative must be at least 25 years of age, have been a citizen for at least seven years, and reside in the State for which he shall be chosen"). Iapetus (talk) 10:13, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That analysis would apply if the text had been, "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and who shall have been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." The participle "been" is governed by the same finite-verb combination "shall not have" as the prior "attained", and so the the first "and" conjoins two subclauses both governed by "have" and has the force of logical conjunction. Also without consideration of the verb forms, the absence of "who shall" after the first "and", combined with its presence after the second "and", should make it clear that the intention is as indicated by the bracketing in "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have (attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States), and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen." In the days the constitution was drawn up, there were no manuals of style or punctuation guides around. As a rule of thumb, a writer would insert a comma wherever they were inclined to briefly pause when reading a sentence aloud. --Lambiam 12:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18th century legalese. It probably made sense at the time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I look at that sort of stuff and wonder, what on earth were they thinking? It's as if it is deliberately written so that only lawyers could understand it. These days that sort of phrasing may as well say, "I went to a third rate law school." (At work I often find, after spending maybe an hour and a half trying to make an email or similar as clear and concise and jargon-free as possible, the end result is only four or five sentences. I think, "Huh? Is this how really how I was taught to write?... Well, yes, as a matter of fact it is.") Pete AU --Shirt58 (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This means Donald Trump can be elected a Representative in at least two states: Confusion and Denial. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

And knowing The Donald, he would probably try for both at the same time. 🙃 Blueboar (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

What constitutes fair use of Australians' web content, under their new law?

What kind of content is Google and Facebook paying for? I've never used Facebook and Google's search engine only gives snippets of content, plus we often share webpage addresses, but is this status quo here being jeopardized? Obviously Google and Facebook can afford to pay A$ to Australian publishers, yet it seems these guys would seem to be rather happy with draconian pay-to-play arrangements in place to keep other search engines and platforms at bay. So what is the impact of Australia's new law, if any, on the continuance of fair use practices in general, such as the sharing of links to Australian websites on Twitter, on Wikipedia, or in articles published in the USA? --Forgot^I^forgot*again* (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does fair use have to do with Australian law? Copyright law of Australia has never had fair use. It's only had fair dealing, like quite a few Commonwealth countries. Nil Einne (talk) 06:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I want to know how the new law affects their specific fair dealing exceptions to copyrights. Precisely why the law affects Google's and Facebook's wallets, but apparently not Wikipedia's? --Forgot^I^forgot*again* (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting. Fair use and fair dealing fall under "fair practices" and Europeans favored the news generators over news aggregators, but American law favored the news aggregators. [1]. --Forgot^I^forgot*again* (talk) 15:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I've found a partial answer here. "Improper use of materials outside of legislation is deemed 'unauthorized edition', not copyright infringement." --Forgot^I^forgot*again* (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's still unclear to me how it can affect internet platforms such as Wikipedia that have a global reach. --Forgot^I^forgot*again* (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation has a legal team whose job it is to deal with that. Ordinary editors such as you and I have no responsibility in that regard. --Jayron 32 17:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So is Wikimedia Foundation's legal team dealing with that and are they going to share their conclusions with us? 2003:F5:6F0B:9F00:C489:F4F6:2036:991B (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC) Marco PB[reply]

February 25

Vietnamese and Thai military power question

In the late 1970s and 1980s, which military was stronger: the Vietnamese military or the Thai military? Futurist110 (talk) 03:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to the Cambodian–Vietnamese War era: "Thailand's capacity to repel an invasion was woeful. Thai military planners likely would not have been confident of their capacity to repel a full-scale military attack without significant external assistance. A Thai-Vietnamese conflict along the Cambodian border would have been mainly a land conflict. Total Vietnamese forces in Cambodia numbered 160,000, divided into two commands and twelve divisions. The number of Vietnamese troops in Cambodia alone exceeded that of the entire Thai army. In addition to numerical strength, Vietnamese forces had good equipment and considerable combat experience".

Strategic Culture and Thailand's Response to Vietnam's Occupation of Cambodia, 1979–1989: A Cold War Epilogue. Alansplodge (talk) 12:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Thai-Vietnamese confrontations during this period - the issue of military capacities here isn't limited to 2 sides. There were communist guerrillas inside Thailand (People's Liberation Army of Thailand), there were Vietnamese-aligned Cambodian forces but there were also the anti-Vietnamese Cambodian factions based along the border. --Soman (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, certainly! Futurist110 (talk) 04:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recall

If a recall election for Gavin Newsom is placed on the ballot, would Newsom's campaign be allowed to take funds raised for his 2022 reelection campaign and re-allocate them towards defeating the recall election? 66.234.210.119 (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is at least the third time you've raised this question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:34, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, and I have yet to receive a definitive answer. 66.234.210.119 (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You won't get one here. You need to talk to a lawyer that deals with election law. And the answer will probably be "it depends". 69.174.144.79 (talk) 03:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did the website Rudolf posted below not help? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:19, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

try this website: [2]. There is also a phone number there you can call with questions. RudolfRed (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the petition is successful, there will be a massive outpouring of financial support to assist Newsom to keep his job. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would further note that per [3] [4], as the recall part is treated as a ballot measure, a committee controlled by an officerholder to oppose the recall is not generally subject to limits. This includes opposing any candidates. (Committees formed by the candidates themselves to support their candidacy are subject to limits, although they can control a committee to support the recall which isn't.) And being able to receive funds from a restricted use account of a general purpose (actually I think any) committee [5]. So it doesn't even make much sense to reallocate funds from one which is subject to such limits unless you're really unable to attract new funding. And in some ways, isn't even really all new funding e.g. if the Democratic Party or some union or whatever has a committee which raises funds for candidates, they could if I understand it correctly, send funds they already raised from their restricted use account which they can't use for candidates to the governor's committee opposing the recall. Nil Einne (talk) 16:45, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 26

Taxation in Sweden

In addition to having no wealth tax or inheritance tax, is it true that Sweden also has no property tax? StellarHalo (talk) 04:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A property tax is levied by the municipalities (see se:Fastighetsavgift), but it is capped at a relatively low ceiling; for 2020 reportedly 8049 SEK (about € 800 or US$ 975). --Lambiam 09:20, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 27

Is there any site that instead of showing how much the value of bitcoin at day X+N is compared to the dollar at the same day X+N, show how much the price of bitcoin is at the day X+N compared to dollar at the specific day X?

Is there any site that instead of showing how much the value of bitcoin at day X+N is compared to the dollar at the same day X+N, so, how much the price of bitcoin is at the day X+N compared to dollar at the specific day X?

At all sites I could find, if you look at the price of bitcoin at january first 2020, it will how much of january first 2020 dollars, this january first 2020 bitcoin is worth. So it will show as some example 1 BTC = 1000 Dollars, but its implied that it is saying 1 BTC (january first 2020 value of the currency) = 1000 dollar (january first 2020 value of the currency).

Lets call bitcoin B and dollar D, the site will sort of show this formula: 1 B = 1000 D.

The problem is that the value of coins, like btc, dollars, euro, or anything else.... changes over time. At another date, lets say december 1 2020 the site will show 1 BTC = 1200 D, being implied that its saying 1 BTC (december 1 2020 value of the currency) = 1200 D (december 1 2020 value of the currency). The thing is, if the january first 2020 formula was 1 * B = 1000 * D, the formula for an another date will be ((1 * Y) * B) /Y = (( 1000 * Z) * D) /Y where Y is how much the value of BTC increased or decreased and Z how much the value of the dollar increased or decreased. If at december 1 2020, it shows 1 B = 1200 D, we can't solve the equation ((1 * Y) * B) /Y = (( 1000 * Z) * D) /Y to find the value of Y, first because at 1 B = ((1 * Y) * B) /Y , the value of Y can be anything that is not 0, and at 1200 * B = (( 1000 * Z) * D) /Y is also not solvable, only being able to know that Y is not 0 and Z is 1200 * Y.

So, is there any site that allow me to compare the value of bitcoin over time, with the value of dollar at some very specific day X? At the previous formulas it would be finding the value of Y.2804:7F2:68C:C9BA:BD84:116:CB13:FB88 (talk) 02:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of "the value of a dollar" increasing or decreasing requires a reference scale that is presumed to be stable. Perhaps the Big Mac Index? Unfortunately, it is not updated daily, but I suppose this index varies slowly, so I guess it could be integrated with the U.S. Dollar Index to take account of daily fluctuations. --Lambiam 10:58, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The value of a bitcoin is exactly what someone (i.e., the market) will pay you for it. In that regard, it is an example of the “greater fool” theory: there is a fool out there, greater than I, who will pay me more than I paid for this financial instrument. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware and Puerto Rico as tax havens?

Puerto Rico and especially Delaware have a reputation as corporate tax havens. What exactly makes people consider them as such? Is Puerto Rico a tax haven for individual income in addition to corporations as well? StellarHalo (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You linked to Delaware, where you will find the answer for that state at Delaware#Incorporation in Delaware and the linked article Delaware General Corporation Law.

The Puerto Rico article, however, does not contain the word "haven". --142.112.149.107 (talk) 22:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Investopedia article on Delaware corporations and taxes really says it all much better than I could relate here. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article about Puerto Rican tax policy [6]. It is indeed looking to attract companies through lower corporate taxes, as well as wealthy individuals willing to cut ties with the mainland for tax avoidance purposes (article on that particular policy here [7]). In both cases, it appears to be a relatively recent phenomenon. Xuxl (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 1

Nero

Who was the closest living male relative of Emperor Nero at the time of his death? 69.209.14.47 (talk) 03:31, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

His short-lived successor Galba was related through a path involving two marriages. He was the husband of Aemilia Lepida, who was a niece of Nero's uncle Drusus Caesar through the latter's marriage to another Aemilia Lepida. Among female relatives, we have Domitia Longina, the future empress, who was a niece (the daughter of half-brother Gnaeus Domitius Corbulo) of Caesonia, Nero's aunt through her marriage with Nero's uncle Caligula. Still a toddler at the time of Nero's death, she lived to an old age. --Lambiam 13:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The OP asked for male relatives. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I first tried to answer for the closest male relative, for which my search produced, as I wrote, Galba (who by all accounts was male), but only related by marriages, and even separated by several such. A relative may be connected by blood, marriage, or adoption, but one has to draw the line somewhere or else everyone is a relative. The lack of male relatives led me to search for any relatives, which still did not turn up blood relatives. --Lambiam 09:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The answer seems to be "he didn't have any", since even Galba was only connected by marriage. Our article on Galba says, "Galba was not related to any of the emperors of the Julio-Claudian dynasty". —Mahāgaja · talk 07:54, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Julio-Claudians died out with Nero, as far as I know. They were pretty bad about keeping their children alive (assassination was a common political tool of the age). If you go back far enough, you may find a fifth- or sixth cousin from where the most recent common ancestor is from before Julius Caesar, but we also may not have the historical records to verify any of that. --Jayron 32 12:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a first cousin. Nero's father Gnaeus Domitius Ahenobarbus had a sister Domitia Lepida the Elder who had a son Junius Blaesus who was "governor of Gallia Lugdunensis in AD 69, a supporter of the emperor Vitellius, who had Blaesus poisoned." This makes Junius Blaesus first cousin to Nero, and he outlasted Nero by a year or so. He was also a great-grandnephew of Augustus through Augustus's sister Octavia the Younger. Junius Blaesus was therefore a blood relative of the Julio-Claudians (not only Nero), although he wasn't one of them. --Amble (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any anti-ISIS or anti-jihad nasheeds?

Thanks. Apokrif (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's "Qalu innaha", for example (lyrics included). Although ISIS isn't explicitly mentioned in the lyrics, it's effectively anti-ISIL. Brandmeister^talk 21:39, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Granholm

Our article on Jennifer Granholm says she "was seen as one of Biden’s least controversial nominees", and yet her Senate confirmation vote had more opposition than any member of the Biden cabinet so far other than Mayorkas. If she's so uncontroversial, why did so many Republicans who had supported other cabinet nominees oppose her? —Mahāgaja · talk 19:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible that they didn't object to her more, but are simply feeling more empowered to object to anyone than they were earlier. --Khajidha (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd complain at the WSJ article from which that entire sentence is copied, almost verbatim. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Khajidha that the opposition may be more a matter of general obstruction than of issues with the specific nominee. Our article has three uses of the construction "[she] was seen as ..."; while cited in two of the uses, it still leaves me wondering, seen as such by whom? The uncited use tells use that she "was seen by many as a 'fresh face'", where the attribution is not helpful. --Lambiam 09:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I suppose so. Still, I can't help but notice that only 2 days before, Tom Vilsack was approved by a vote of 92–7, so it seems a little odd that this mindset of "general obstruction" arose within those 2 days. I also notice with some surprise that one of the 7 senators who voted against Vilsack was Bernie Sanders, who is otherwise hardly likely to be obstructionist against Biden's selections. I wonder what he has against Vilsack. And to make myself clear: I'm not really asking for idle speculation either as to the general opposition to Granholm nor Sanders's opposition to Vilsack. In both cases I'm really wondering whether these questions have been raised and/or answered by the U.S. media (I haven't lived in America in over 20 years and am sort of out of the loop when it comes to national politics.) —Mahāgaja · talk 16:52, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2

Why James Brown sweated profusely?

On many photos in James Brown he's more or less sweaty, mainly when performing. During It's A Man's Man's Man's World peformance, for example, he was sweating already from the start, while the song itself is quite calm, without any intense moves. This source mentions "hot stage lights", but other performers from the same era didn't seem to sweat that much. Hyperhidrosis maybe? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's face it, he was hot! [8] Martinevans123 (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know he wasn't sweating from a prior (strenuous) number he had performed? After all, he was "the hardest working man in show business". Clarityfiend (talk) 01:00, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 3

Question about plot with police and criminals

I remember reading a story in the Donald Duck pocket books where the mayor of Duckburg hires Donald Duck as the new chief of police after the old one resigns. Right from the start of Donald's job, a leader of a criminal gang poses as a police informant and informs Donald of the operations of every criminal gang in the city, except his own. Donald's police forces successfully catch all the other criminal gangs. However, this has been a ruse - the first criminal gang now has free rein over the city as the police have eliminated all the competition.

Once this gets discovered, Donald gets berated for allowing this one criminal gang to proceed freely without fear of competition. Donald only saves face by enlisting real police informants and thus catching even the last remaining criminal gang.

What I don't understand here is why Donald got berated. Isn't it the police's job to catch criminals and stop crime? What should Donald have done instead, let the criminals proceed freely? Is there something I'm missing here, or is this a massive plot hole? JIP | Talk 00:18, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The part you seem to be missing is that it is humor, and fiction. If Donald Duck DOSEN’T get berated, it isn’t funny. Don’t read too much into it; Toons ain’t that deep. . DOR (HK) (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have never liked this kind of reply. It's basically "in fiction, anything can happen". Even fiction should make sense. Going by this logic, Donald Duck could simply have magically read the criminals' minds and used magical powers to catch them on the spot. What I thought I was really asking here was that isn't it the job of the police to try to catch criminals and prevent crime in the first place, regardless of how it affects the internal conflicts of criminals. JIP | Talk 03:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even fiction should make sense. Perhaps a perfect piece of fiction would make perfect sense, but authors rarely achieve perfection, and may sacrifice perfect sense deliberately or through less-than-perfect craft for the sake of writing a story that entertains (not to mention one that meets a deadline – remember the old maxim, "We don't need it good, we need it Tuesday").

This may be especially so for fiction written with no serious intention or message, specifically for children who (sometimes mistakenly) may be considered by adults to be a less discerning and demanding audience: I suggest that a Donald Duck comic falls into this category.

Add to this the observation that in the Real World people often deviate from strict logic, and that sometimes every possible reaction to a situation will be criticised by someone, either from honest disagreement or for a tactical advantage: this is why we are beset with contentious politics rather than logical, reasoned debate followed by calm concensus. Sometimes, also, there is no good solution to a bad situation, only various more bad and less bad ones. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.75.168 (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 207: / Line 207: @@
 ::The part you seem to be missing is that it is humor, and fiction. If Donald Duck DOSEN’T get berated, it isn’t funny. Don’t read too much into it; Toons ain’t that deep. . [[User:DOR (HK)|DOR (HK)]] ([[User talk:DOR (HK)|talk]]) 02:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 :::I have never liked this kind of reply. It's basically "in fiction, anything can happen". Even fiction should make sense. Going by this logic, Donald Duck could simply have magically read the criminals' minds and used magical powers to catch them on the spot. What I thought I was really asking here was that isn't it the job of the police to try to catch criminals and prevent crime in the first place, regardless of how it affects the internal conflicts of criminals. [[User:JIP|<span style="color: #CC0000;">J</span><span style="color: #00CC00;">I</span><span style="color: #0000CC;">P</span>]] &#124; [[User talk:JIP|Talk]] 03:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
+::::''Even fiction should make sense.'' Perhaps a perfect piece of fiction would make perfect sense, but authors rarely achieve perfection, and may sacrifice perfect sense deliberately or through less-than-perfect craft for the sake of writing a story that entertains (not to mention one that meets a deadline – remember the old maxim, "We don't need it good, we need it Tuesday").
+::::This may be especially so for fiction written with no serious intention or message, specifically for children who (sometimes mistakenly) may be considered by adults to be a less discerning and demanding audience: I suggest that a Donald Duck comic falls into this category.
+::::Add to this the observation that in the Real World people often deviate from strict logic, and that sometimes ''every'' possible reaction to a situation will be criticised by ''someone'', either from honest disagreement or for a tactical advantage: this is why we are beset with contentious politics rather than logical, reasoned debate followed by calm concensus. Sometimes, also, there is ''no'' good solution to a bad situation, only various more bad and less bad ones. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} [[Special:Contributions/2.125.75.168|2.125.75.168]] ([[User talk:2.125.75.168|talk]]) 03:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)