Humanities desk
< December 3	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 5 >

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.

December 4

staple food

Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, first president of Bangladesh said that the staple food of the Bengali people were rice, Hilsa fish and lentil soup. Is there a list of a nation's or an ethnic groups' staple food? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article titled Staple food is a good place to start. --Jayron32 02:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And Bengali cuisine and Bangladeshi cuisine. Bangladeshi cuisine has a "Cuisine" infobox at the very bottom of the page that will link you to a long list of other national cuisines. 184.147.123.169 (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gates, Jobs, Dell and Zuckerberg

Has any of the companies of the drop-outs above tried to attract drop-outs? OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they? --Jayron32 13:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Maybe because they recognize some quality in their founders? At least, were they more flexible towards drop-outs? OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question is unanswerable. Any company will want to attract the best people to work for them. That means taking a holistic view of the candidates' work history, academic record, etc. These four companies are no exception. --Viennese Waltz 13:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well, that presumes that the HR departments of those companies takes direct influence from their founders. Possible, I suppose, but not necessarily guaranteed. I checked, just because references are nice here, some random jobs listed on Apple's Website: [1]. Not every job, of course, has a college degree as a requirements, but every one I would have expected such a requirement has such a requirement. That is, I don't see any difference in job requirements at Apple regarding the need for a college degree in certain jobs than I would expect at any company. --Jayron32 13:46, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably qualify "drop-outs". If you mean those who graduated high school, but dropped out of college, then probably, yes. If you mean those who completed a GED instead of high school, then perhaps. If you mean those who dropped out of high school and never got a GED, then probably, no. Also, you might find artistic companies to value those who don't fit into the academic world more, say to be fashion designers. StuRat (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can Michael J. Fox vote in both the U.S. and Canada?

Considering he has the two citizenships?. Thank you. Keeeith (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2012_November_8#Are_people_such_as_Michael_J._Fox.2C_Jim_Carrey_allowed_to_vote_in_both_Canada_and_the_U.S..3F OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I read that but couldn't understand whether or not they are allowed to vote or not. I mean, if they were out of Canada for how long they are not able to vote anymore even if they still have Canadian citizenship? or what? Keeeith (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you clarify what parts of Vmenkov answer confuses you or doesn't answer your question as to me it seems it does. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last post in that archived discussion says:

Any Canadian citizen living abroad can vote in Canadian federal elections, provided s/he has lived outside of Canada for less than 5 consecutive years, and s/he intends to return to Canada. Having also a foreign citizenship is not a factor per se. (Of course, if the person's foreign citizenship is acquired by naturalization in a foreign country, it probably means that he's spent too long outside of Canada to be eligible to vote anymore). -- Vmenkov (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, provided s/he has lived outside of Canada for less than 5 consecutive years, and s/he intends to return to Canada. Having also a foreign citizenship is not a factor per se. I'd look in the given link for confirmation and elaboration. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as mentioned Vmenkov's answer seems to answer the question (and it's supported by the ref and also another official ref [2]) so it would help if Keeeith clarifies what part still confuses them. The only possible issue of contention I can see is there may be doubt of what happens if you just go back to Canada for a short stay. Per this source [3] it sounds like the current intepretation is you actually have to been considered to have 'lived' in Canada, simply visiting is likely not enough. Although it's a still a bit unclear to me how long you have to have been in Canada to be considered to have lived there again. And it's peossible they may be able to vote in person even if they are not really living in Canada any more, see also [4]. Based on that letter, it's possible if you are considered to have established residence as would be the case if you wanted to vote in a new riding, that is enough to be considered to have lived in Canada. On ther other hand per [5], it's somewhat unclear to me whether you will be considered to have established residence if you are say, living in some part of Canada for 3 months or even a year but completely intend to leave. (Even though if you're living continously in Canada for over 183 in a tax year, you'll likely have established tax residency for that year no matter your plans.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have no specific knowledge of Canadian law, as a permanent resident of Hong Kong, and a US citizen, I am entitled to vote (or, stand for office) in both places. Note that HK doesn't require citizenship for voting and for some official offices. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It;s regularly related in the NYC press that certain large local minorities participate in their homeland's elections, for example, Dominicans. μηδείς (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding citizenships

My questions are, does a person have to give up his Canadian citizenship in order to become an American citizen too?, and my other question is the same but if an Australian citizen becomes American. Keeeith (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the US State Dept page on dual citizenship. Specifically:

"A U.S. citizen may acquire foreign citizenship by marriage, or a person naturalized as a U.S. citizen may not lose the citizenship of the country of birth.U.S. law does not mention dual nationality or require a person to choose one citizenship or another. Also, a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship. However, a person who acquires a foreign citizenship by applying for it may lose U.S. citizenship. In order to lose U.S. citizenship, the law requires that the person must apply for the foreign citizenship voluntarily, by free choice, and with the intention to give up U.S. citizenship."

So, no, not as a general rule. — Lomn 16:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I am a stupid person, there are at least two examples of both citizenships, Michael J. Fox himself and Jim Carrey. It's okay with Canada, it's allowed to hold both citizenships. But what about Australia, does anybody know? Keeeith (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our Multiple citizenship article isn't great, but it does cover Australia with references. I suggest you check out the article or do a simple search if you have more questions of this nature since they are generally very easy to find. Nil Einne (talk) 16:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, though it's comparatively recent, per Australia's Dept of Immigration and Citizenship. So Canada, Australia, and the US all allow mutual dual citizenship in the general case, but specific circumstances may vary (and Wikipedia is not a suitable venue for determining those legal specifics). — Lomn 16:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're partially mistaken. The reference only says Australians taking on another citizenship lost their Australian citizenship before 2002. This would suggest it was possible for Australians to have dual citizenship for example if they acquired their Australian citizenship after their other citizenship (American in this case) or possibly if they acquired both at birth. Our article seems to support Australian nationality law#Dual Citizenship this. Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Poem

Poem: "a place in missouri called the ozarks"

author: not sure — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.119.42.254 (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might try looking here to see if it jogs your memory. Duoduoduo (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Governor General of Canada

I sent an e-mail to his office and I received an automatic response telling me that I will get a response within three weeks. My worries come about that I now see the calendar and see that part of the three weeks falls into the winter break. Is there personnel on breaks too? I would appreciate your help. Thank you. Keeeith (talk) 20:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It may be understood as "three working weeks" - not 21 days on the calendar, but 15 working days. See if the GG's office has a website that announces their schedule for the winter holiday season. -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Government offices in Canada don't shut down completely for the holiday season. They just do not work on the three statutory holidays (Christmas, Boxing Day and New Year's Day - with all three holidays being moved to the next weekday should they fall on a week-end). Offices are short-staffed during those periods, however, so routine and non-urgent work tends to get pushed aside until January 2nd. --Xuxl (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Lisa Interpretation

I felt there were things left to be noticed in the photos available on Wikipedia_Mona Lisa Mona Lisa Close Up pics

a) There is a drop of sweat on left side of her nose, near her eyes. She did not remove it shows chances of her behaving in an abnormal way because a person doing something unnatural has higher chances of missing natural tendencies. b) There is a mole on right side of her eyebrows. c) Her posture is a little bend forward. d) Her hands seem in an uncomfortable position.

      i) Her left hand bend and holding table showing anxiety or avoidance of showing nails.
      ii) Her right hand's index finger a greater than normal distance apart indicating she might be scratching her left hand.
      iii) Her right hand placed on left in a way that its hiding something.

e) Her eyes are reddish which could be pain or anger. f) Her eyes were sad when drawn as seen by the curve they make. g) Her face seems older than what Leonardo da Vinci made of her can be understood by observing her torso fat or may be its also possible that Da Vinci had to draw her her torso bigger than what it was just to please the person for whom he made the portrait. h) Her face looks like a man when seen from extreme right and extreme left. i) Her guarnello (the transparent cover) is seen mainly on her right side and its dirty near hairs. j) The background though looks similar shows extremities may be indicative of two phases of her lives. k) The photo is definitely a part of something whole. l) In a whole the painter drew something not present in front of her but rather the better version of her. m) The left bottom side of background looks like an old man when seen by turning photo 90 degree clockwise. May be a sign of Da Vinci.

Harsh Dalmia 14.139.241.89 (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.139.241.89 (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm skeptical of most of that, but are you aware that portrait painting required the subject to hold a constant posture for many hours? It was pretty stressful. Looie496 (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey folks, this is not the place to be getting into an OR discussion about this. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That painting's been around for awhile, so there are liable to be countless websites with opinions on every possible aspect of the painting. Google is your friend. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a page for asking for factual information, not for airing speculations or starting discussions. You might find some useful sites from Speculation about Mona Lisa and the references therein. --ColinFine (talk) 11:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Sales Strategy

What is the term used for selling products that are custom created, typically with images from the customers?...Thanks for the help! Linkinfloyd (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

bespoke is a common term, and may be what you're looking for. custom, custom-designed, made-to-order, tailored to the customer (a metaphor, as you are not literally tailoring), customized, special-order, specialty, customer-specific or client-specific, special order, etc etc. There are many terms. why not just google for other people in your sector that do something like that, and use what they do? 178.48.114.143 (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Bespoke" isn't a common term for this, at least in the US. StuRat (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Personalized". There are also terms for other types of personalization, like "monogrammed" or "custom-fit". StuRat (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your inputs..Can you be a little more specific, something to do with images...i'm looking for a term...i tried to google but i didnt get it...Can someone throw some light, please..Thanks for the help! Linkinfloyd (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try "Personalized photograph X". For example, here are "Personalized photograph guest towels": [6]. StuRat (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

French Taxes

In the November 25, 2012 issue of The Washington Post, on page E4, speaking of John Malkovich, in the third-to-last paragraph of the article, it says: "In 2007, he directed the Zach Helm play 'Good Canary' in Paris. He says he earned 25,000 euros for the job. Punch line: 'My tax bill was 29,000 euros.'" Assuming the facts purveyed are accurate, how is it possible that the taxes you owe on income you receive to the income you receive is on the order of 116%? Peter Michner (talk) 23:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you get fined because the French IRS thinks you are earning more than you declared, then yes. It is also the case that France has some form of wealth tax, so low earnings doesn't imply low taxes there. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is also possible in a graduated tax system. Consider a simplified situation where an income up to 10,000 is taxed at 10%, and an income over 10,000 is taxed at 20%:

 Income   Rate   Tax 
 ======   ====   ====
 10,000    10%   1000
 11,000    20%   2200

So, in this case, 1000 more in income causes 1200 more in taxes. Most countries avoid this problem by saying that only the income over 10000 is taxable at the higher rate and/or by having more gradations. I have run into such a situation, myself, though. In my case, they had a "luxury tax" on suits, so that any suit over $100 had to pay the tax. However, by buying the pants and jacket separately, I was able to avoid that limit. StuRat (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, your arithmetic above illustrates a common misunderstanding of how such systems usually work (I do not claim always). In most jurisdictions (such as the UK) you would pay, on the 11,000, 10% of the 10,000 plus 20% of the 1,000 above the 10,000 threshold, totalling 1,200.

From my dim memories of such alleged situations (taxes exceeding income) applying to rock bands in the '70s, taxes exceeding income often arose from a confusion between gross and net earnings and which various taxes applied to, the years in which income was earned, confusions about exactly where in an international operation various incomes were earned and where they should be taxed (still a very live issue, as mentioned in our Starbucks article, Section 8.9), and dishonest accountants and other managerial entities ripping off and lying to the artists concerned. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose your example is just a fictional one, and that no tax system in the world applies exactly these rates. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nowhere on Earth where the normal situation is that you owe more in taxes compared to what you earn, unless you are fined for non tax paid or other irregularities. So either Malkovich was fined or his statement is not accurate (or his statement was reported inaccurately). --Saddhiyama (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saddhiyama -- mid-20th century British "death duties" or inheritance taxes could often result in tax liabilities significantly beyond annual income... AnonMoos (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The expression "my tax bill" could still be accurate. His "tax bill" could consist of money he owes as taxes, and money he owes as a fine. To him, it's all "tax", because it may as well be. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 02:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A similar situation existed in the US for those on welfare. Until recently, if they got a minimum wage job, they would lose many of their benefits from "being on the dole" and incur taxes, so their financial situation would worsen, not improve. StuRat (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

France definitely has a wealth tax. If you are resident in France, for that tax year, you have to pay tax based on what you own, as well as a tax based on you earn. So if he was very wealthy, he had to pay both. I only ever paid income tax, though, since I was never (and probanbly will never be) wealthy enough to pay the wealth tax. --Lgriot (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Combining wealth taxes with generally high marginal tax rates, which is fairly common in Europe, can easily lead to tax rates higher than 100% of your income. In the 1970s novelist Astrid Lindgren wrote the story Pomperipossa in Monismania complaining about her 102% tax rate, and according to my copy of the Guinness Book of Records, shipping magnate Hilmar Reksten once had to pay 491% of his income in taxes. Gabbe (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Malkovich's case, it appears his tax rate is merely 65%, which he has refused to pay, saying he has paid his taxes to the American IRS instead. So in 2007 the French demanded more money as a consequence of this play than he earned on it. See [7] and [8] for more details. Gabbe (talk) 10:25, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(EC with 87 above.) I think StuRat is mistaken about what a graduated tax system means. AFAIK graduated tax system always implies a system with tax brackets. (Note that a graduated tax system is a form of progressive taxation but the terms are not synonymous. You can achieve progressive taxation in various ways besides tax brackets but as stated I believe a graduated tax system always implies a system with tax brackets.) Read the article if you don't know what a tax brackets means, it implies a brackets where you have a cutoff point beyond which the additional income above that value is taxed at a higher rate. I'm not aware if there is a name for the system described by StuRat where an income over a certain rate means an increase in rate for all the income (well with tax brackets the marginal rate increases but in specifics the lower income is still taxed at the lower level). Has any country ever even used such a system? (It isn't uncommon for people to misunderstand tax brackets and think the entire income is taxed at a higher rate if you enter into a different bracket.)

While there may be benefit systems where an increase in income can result in a reduction in money coming in I don't think this is common. AFAIK in most countries the system is designed to avoid that. E.g. here in NZ the issue of concern is generally not that you actually take less money in when you increase your income due to benefit reduction which rarely or never happens, but rather that the extra money you bring in is less some say significantly less then the extra you earn because of the combination of taxes and benefit reduction so there is far less incentive to earn more. This happens because benefits gradually reduce rather then being a case of either you get the full amount or none at all. (Theoretically a wealth tax could also mean a person a person will find they make less money by a higher income presuming said income doesn't increase their spending but from my reading of the article countries tend to use a progressive system starting at zero so avoid this. )

There are of course cases where you are either taxed or not taxed and a small increase in value can result in a sudden possibly large tax bill which would otherwise be due such as the suit example StuRat gave. This may be related to the example he gave of the hypothetical system where rather then using tax brackets a person earning over a certain amount has the entirety of their income taxed at a higher rate. But it's clearly not the same thing as it does not result in a person actually bringing less money in by earning more, as earning doesn't even come in to the picture. One of the effects of such cases is they can encourage people to tax evasion or tax avoidance schemes again as suggested by StuRat with the suit. But note that there can be the same thing even with stuff like a normal graduated taxation system particularly in special cases. E.g. Depending on the brackets, a person who expects to earn a lot less next year or even nothing may wish to find a way to defer about half of their income from this year to next year. Depending on the country and how it's done may or may not be legal but it can result in quite a different tax bill. However again this doesn't mean the person would have got less money because of an increase in income.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the system I described is much better if you have more brackets with smaller differences in rates:

 Income   Rate   Tax 
 ======   ====   ====
 10,000   10%    1000
 10,001   10.1%  1010

So, here $1 in extra income increases your tax by $10, so it's 1000% of the additional income. However, we're only talking about $10, so it's not such a concern. It also makes the calculations far simpler, with no need for tax tables (although the chart with the rates can get big, too). StuRat (talk) 17:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two different issues here -- income tax / income > 1 (the extreme issue, apparently misleadingly claimed by Malkovich), and marginal tax / marginal income > 1. As mentioned above, at least in the US the latter issue, of a marginal tax rate greater than one, sometimes comes up for people trying to work their way off public assistance, and for people earning social security and working. I remember back in the 1980s, the West Virginia state income tax system was designed so that at a certain income level, one more dollar would cause your tax to go up by many dollars; I wish I could remember the details, because it struck me that the system must have been designed by amateurs. Also, back in the 1960s and quite possibly more recently than that, I think the marginal US federal income tax rate on the highest income was something like 90%, and if you lived in a high-marginal-tax state your combined marginal rate could be very close to (or even greater than??) 100%. Does Wikipedia have anything about the history of US tax brackets? Duoduoduo (talk) 16:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One could make an interesting set of graphs out of this. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Looks like the highest US income rate was 94% in 1945. Now we have it at 35% (with plenty of loopholes, to boot) and the Republicans claim the economy will collapse if we dare to raise it. StuRat (talk) 17:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading John Malkovich#Personal life and political views it becomes clear that "Malkovich ... lived and worked in a theater in Southern France [but] ... left France in a dispute over taxes in 2003". Seems he is not a fan of the French tax authorities and I think he might well have been joking in the Washington Post's interview. While France has high tax rates, at no time does it exceed 100% of income (only in 2013 will a rate of 75% on income over €1 million be introduced). Astronaut (talk) 17:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]