Humanities desk
< June 1	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 3 >

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.

June 2[edit]

Hu Jintao's family[edit]

Does Hu Jintao have any kids, any grandkids, if Hu Jintao have kids, are they born in 1963-1970? For grandkids [1] isn't the little girl shaking hands with John Kufuor at FOCAC one of grandkids born in 1990s? --69.229.240.187 (talk) 00:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read our article on Hu Jintao which mentions that he has two children with his wife Liu Yongqing, a son and a daughter. It does not mention grandchildren. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw it on the article in section one. Hu Jintao have one son, one daughter. Hu Hai Feng (male) and Hu Haiqing (female). On this article they said son is 35 in 2006, they he will be born in 1971. But I can't find anything about daughter.--69.229.240.187 (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then who is this women by Mwai Kibaki and a boy and a girl with Paul Biya?--69.229.240.187 (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have to be somebody related to President Hu? The girls shaking John Kufuor's hand could be anybody. You can't even see her face. Could it be some girl who won an essay contest at her local school? Maybe its the daughter of someone else in the government? The article gives no indication who it is, and given the paltry lack of any evidence otherwise, I don't see any way we could decipher who she is. Even if Hu had a granddaughter, we have no way to tell if this is her. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The girl in the photo is almost absolutely certainly not Hu Jintao's grandkids. Children are chosen for tasks like this based on political outlook, academic merit and that kind of thing. It is unheard of for leaders to use their children in this role. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swine flu in Antarctica?[edit]

Is it serious? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:H1N1_map.svg --190.50.68.16 (talk) 03:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around on the news, outbreak reports linked to in the article, and 2009 swine flu outbreak by country, but I couldn't find anything about swine flu in Antarctica. It was User:Vrysxy who updated the map to include Antarctica. You should probably shoot him a message since I can't find a reference for the change. Sifaka ^talk 03:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need The Following Census Information On Religion Within The United States[edit]

% of people who identified as Christians

• in the years earlier than 1990 (how far back? As far as you can go) • state-by-state today • state-by-state in the past

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Razzaskingquestions (talk • contribs) 05:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check the Bureau of the Census at http://www.census.gov Livewireo (talk) 13:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the U.S. Census asked people their religion. Edison (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? How are you supposed to claim to be a Jedi if the census doesn't ask for your religion? That's the only reason to fill our a census... --Tango (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Jedi religion comes from an Australian census.
Sleigh (talk) 20:38, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The official U.S. Census simply does not ask about religion. This creates problems for those who consider themselves to be of Jewish ethnicity (even if they may not be particularly religious), but who definitely do not consider themselves to be German-Americans or Ukrainian-Americans etc. in the usual sense (even if their ancestors may have come from there) -- there's not really any official census-approved reply which they can put in the "ethnic origin" field which is in accordance with their own sense of self-identity. AnonMoos (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not just doesn't ask about religion but legally cannot ask mandatory questions about religion (Public Law 94-521). Rmhermen (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Association of Religion data Archives. In the US there have been religious censuses conducted by religious interfaith groups back to the 19th century. See [2].You may find the article [[3]] helpful, as well as the articles it links to. Edison (talk) 16:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jaroslav Seifert Poetry[edit]

Where can I find the original Czech version of these two poems?[4] I don't understand the language at all, but I'd like to see how the original poems looked and might have sounded. Vltava 68 09:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cicero on Plautus[edit]

Cicero spoke highly of the Roman playwright Terence. Did he have any (recorded) opinion on Plautus?? (added signature, which I forgot): It's been emotional (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cicero ranks him with the Athenian poets for his "elegant, polished, ingenious and witty manner of jesting," [De officiis I.29.104] and even puts into the mouth of the orator Crassus a statement that his mother-in-law's speech reminded him of Plautus' style. [De Oratore III.12.45] In the lady's interests, if for no other reason, we may imagine that Cicero was less familiar with our poet than he implies. Norwood, G. (1963). Plautus and Terence. OCLC 405627

—eric 13:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Treasury Stock[edit]

When a corporation purchases back its own stock it is considered "treasury stock", basically stock the corporation owns and can resell when it pleases. But let's say a corporation had no debt (just equity) and purchased back ALL of its stock; does the corporation then own itself?

I don't believe this ever happens since it is a pretty silly way to use capital but in theory is this possible? And what would happen to the corporation since it's technically an legal entity (a person in many legal regards)? Maybe it would do a better job cleaning up the balance sheet then its former board of directors ;) TheFutureAwaits (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It happens quite often, actually, and is called "going private". Many private equity funds and hedge funds specialise in this sort of operation. Rhinoracer (talk) 12:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well right, maybe I should have been more specific with the assumptions of this theorectical situation. I'm saying imagine there's a corporation with no stakeholders, no board, just the last remaining executive who decides to quit but just before he does he decides the corporation will purchase all of it's equity and convert it to treasury stock (maybe I left a detail out but I think you see what I'm getting at). After he leaves and there's no one in charge and all of the corporation's capital is in treasury stock, wouldn't the corporation own itself? Who would have the legal authority to deny the legal entity of its possessions? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corporations always have board members - if board nominees resign, the underlying owners become board members, whether they like it or not. Corporations always have owners; not least because ownership of a private company carries liability, and one cannot wish that liability away. People either have to sell stock (to someone else) or dissolve the company - and even if a company is dissolved its former owners still have liability for it (and for its proper wind-up), even if all its assets have been disposed of. 87.115.16.117 (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I don't think I'm elucidating myself clearly. What I'm getting at is if there were no underlying owners/stakeholder/whoever, any individual with a stake in the company besides some people who had common stock. Then ALL of the common stock was repurchased by the company as treasury stock (let's say the stockholders made this decision). Assuming it was originally in a 100% equity (common stock) state of capitalization prior to the repurchase then there wouldn't be anyone else to be considered the owner.

At that point there is no one left in charge of the company so wouldn't it own itself? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 19:48, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is predicated on a false postulate, namely "if there were no underlying owners/stakeholder/whoever". This cannot happen; there is no mechanism where a company can continue to exist but not have underlying owners. Even Byzantine schemes of mutual holding companies, eccentric wills, and the death or madness of owners or directors doesn't make that ownership go away (even if actually figuring out with whom it lies is very difficult). 87.115.16.117 (talk) 19:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except if the only stakeholders were shareholders who then had their stock repurchased as treasury stock... TheFutureAwaits

The company couldn't buy its last share, there always has to be at least one shareholder. When a company goes private it doesn't buy all its shares, it buys all except those own by whoever is going to become the private owner. --Tango (talk) 21:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See that sounds plausible, Tango. So then if (hypothetically) the company were to purchase that last share it would own itself. I agree there are likely laws against it, but I'm saying in theory this would be the end result. Do you guys agree? TheFutureAwaits (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The law would mean the transaction selling the last share was void, the company simply cannot own itself. --Tango (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like everyone keeps jumping to this answer because they think "hey that can't happen, someone needs to own it". But since a corporation is a legal entity the concept of ownership gets very distorted. I'm suggesting that (although there are likely laws against it) ultimately there are circumstances by which no one would own a corporation except for itself. TheFutureAwaits (talk) 23:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The corporate personality is a legal fiction: a corporation acts through the mind of its officers, and said officers must by law act in the interest of the company's owner or owners. Who would be the mind, and acting on whose behalf, when that last share is purchased?

Aside from the fact that it would not be legally possible (a company cannot own itself), let's look at this economically. Let's say there is one share on issue for the company, owned by Joe Tycoon. JT is the sole owner of the company. Economically, the so-called "share" now represents the entire company, since the entire net assets of the company is one share. If Joe were to "sell" the share, he is selling the company. If he sold the company "to itself", what consideration would he receive? In an arm's length transaction, since he is selling the entire company, he must receive the value of that entire company. So the company would have two options for paying him: transfer all of its assets and liabilities to him personally, with the company henceforth being an incorporeal shell with no assets. Or, the company can liquidate itself and pay the proceeds to JT. In which case the company would again be an incorporeal shell with no assets. Either way, economically speaking, there would be no company. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see a fallacy in "the entire net assets of the company is one share". The net assets are represented by one share; the assets and the one share are on opposite sides of the balance sheet. If Joe sells the company to itself, he receives whatever he (as corporate officer) chooses to pay himself (as the seller); what's the problem? There's nothing illegal about selling something (on one's own behalf) for less than it's worth. —Tamfang (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was talking "economically" here - and impliedly assumed efficient markets and fair pricing. Under such assumptions, the value of that one share is the value of the net assets, whatever that may be (not book value: actual value obtainable).

If we abandon those assumptions, then we have to put in other assumptions that proxy the real world - it may not be illegal to sell something for less than its fair value, but it is illegal to 1) have a company with no members, and 2) for the directors to act other than in the best interest of the company, which is the interest of its present and future shareholders. See further below. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:50, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent answer, thank you for addressing my argument and also pointing me to the corporate personality debate which I was not previously aware of. This is fascinating material, it makes me wonder if there might still be benefits to JT selling the stock via removal of liability, a tax benefit, etc. Of course this is all theoretical so there's no way to put a value on those factors but still interesting to consider. TheFutureAwaits (talk) 23:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected the link in my earlier post. I had no idea that "corporate personality" was a theological concept!--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that there must always be shareholders; nonprofit corporations have none. Such a buyback would, it seems to me, convert the corporation in question to a nonprofit. —Tamfang (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're thinking of a corporation not limited by shares. Of course such corporations exist, but registration requirements for them are different. The company's directors cannot just choose to convert to a company limited by guarantee, say. I'm not sure whether in various jurisdictions you even can do so, but even if you do convert, the members of the company limited by shares would be the same as the company limited by guarantee, who upon dissolution have a right to a distribution of the company's net assets.

A share, ultimately, is a security that represents the right of a company's member to receive a distribution of its net capital upon dissolution. But it is membership in the company, not the share per se, that entitles the member to the distribution: the number of shares merely marks out what proportion of the whole each shareholder will receive.

Legally speaking, a company must always have members, even if they are not shareholders. As has been pointed out above, it is a requirement for registration and for maintaining registration in any jurisdiction that uses companies law as we know it that the company has at least one member. When, as envisaged above, the last member no longer wishes to be a member, and there are no other members, the company legally fails one of the pre-requisites for being a company. Thus, the company must distribute what is due to that member. Since there are no other members in the company, the entire net assets of the company (net of sale costs etc) are what must be distributed to that member. A company that has no members is not a company; and not being a company, it cannot hold assets. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you perhaps intend to link to private company limited by guarantee rather than to private company limited by shares? —Tamfang (talk) 04:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "Art Deco" PAGE [Photo of black car bottom right of page][edit]

I don't know how to change (edit)the caption under the photo of the black car near the bottom of the section. It is listed as a Nash Ambassodor It IS NOT! It is a 1947(I Think) Cadillac. Would you,whomever you are, correct the caption, please?Djlebeau (talk) 13:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC) DJLeBeau (Logo on the front grille of the car)[reply]

Hi. Hard for us to action this if you're not sure yourself. Why not post to Talk:Art Deco and see what the others there think? --Dweller (talk) 14:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize the logo as a 48 Nash, but the body is 42. I removed the year and asked about it on the photo's talk page. I suspect it is a remodel with a 42 body and 48 grill. -- kainaw ™ 15:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a picture of a post-war Nash "Slipstream" Ambassador 4-door sedan that I took at a car show. There is more information on these cars here, but it is NOT a Cadillac! — CZmarlin (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]