Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 January 18

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< January 17 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 19 >
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.


Contents


[edit] January 18

[edit] FDNY Memorial flag

I've seen these flags and decals. They were probably patterned after the POW/MIA flag. Except, the silhouette of a firefighter is featured up front, and the World Trade Center is in the background. Above the graphic, it says FDNY/MIA. Underneath everything, it says NEVER FORGOTTEN. There should be some lapel pins, etc., of this type of graphic available for sale. The money should go to charity. Does anybody out there feel the same way? Please let me know what you think. Thank you so very much.72.229.136.18 (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Not knowing what "FDNY" stands for, and only guessing that "MIA" is "missing in action", I am at risk of tripping in a minefield. However, this sounds like the opening of a soapbox, rather than a Ref Desk question. Bielle (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
FDNY. -- Coneslayer (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

FDNY stands for Fire Department City of New York. And you guessed right about the MIA. This is not any type of soapbax opening. It's suggestion of any commemorative item with the FDNY/MIA graphic, that's all.72.229.136.18 (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but this is the Reference Desk, not a discussion forum. What, exactly, is your question? It sounds like a sales proposal, not something we can research and answer. -- Coneslayer (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not proposing any sales. My question is if anyone out there agrees with me on a suggestion of commemorative items with the FDNY/MIA graphic, with the money going to charity, that's all.72.229.136.18 (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Which moneys will be going to charities, without any sales? Llamabr (talk) 04:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
What charity? Personally I think we should not be expecting the pennies of a few mug sales to be paying for things like 9/11 rescue worker health care. The government should being doing that. In many cases, they are not. Put that on a mug and sell it. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 04:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know. I don't read anywhere in the constitution anything about providing healthcare for firemen. You might be referring to the government of the city of NY? Probably it's up to the healthcare providers or insurance companies who cover fire departments to do so. Llamabr (talk) 13:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hermes, Plato and Manichaeism

The Wikipedia article on Manichaeism says that Mani regarded Hermes and Plato as a prophets or divinely guided men, and saw himself as their successor. My question is, is this correct? I ask because I have never seen a source that makes this claim before. None of the works dealing with Gnosticism and Manichaeism that I have consulted (including A. A. Bevan's article on Manichaeism in James Hastings's Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Geo Widengren's Mani and Manichaeism, Hans Jonas's The Gnostic Religion, Kurt Rudolph's Gnosis, and the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Manichaeism) say anything about Mani regarding Hermes or Plato as prophets. Skoojal (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't know anything on that specific issue, but Mani does seem to have been somewhat consciously syncretistic in certain respects... AnonMoos (talk) 11:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Until 1969, when the Mani-codex was discovered at Cologne (see the weak Wikipedia article Cologne Mani-Codex) what was "known" of Mani was gleaned from remarks made by his early medieval Christian detractors and from inferences derived from medieval Manichaean writers, cautiously summarised in Steven Runciman, The Medieval Manichee (1982). A comparable example would be the surmisings about Gnosticism made before the recovery of Gnostic texts in 1945, the "Nag Hammadi Library". See what modern scholars have been saying about the Cologne Mani Codexin the last four decades, and build your understanding from modern scholarship, not from James Hastings's Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, written between 1908 and 1927. --Wetman (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response Wetman. If the Cologne Mani Codex shows that Mani regarded Hermes and Plato as prophets (does it?), that is extremely interesting, and the article on Manichaeism should be properly footnoted so that readers know that this is what that claim is based upon. Incidentally, I'm well aware that the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics is not an up-to-date source, and I've never thought that works going back to the early decades of the 20th century should be one's only source of information. You'll note that I mentioned several more recent books, including that by Kurt Rudolph, published in 1977. Rudolph takes the Cologne Mani Codex into account. Skoojal (talk) 03:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Roman decline

Please help. Did the roman empire fall because of imperial mismanagement or were there other more significant factors at work? Did Constantine do more to divide than unite the empire? Why did he succeed when Diocletian's system of governance failed? Sorry so many questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Viola 3 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's some question you pose, Viola! It is actually enormously complex, and involves much more than just one or even several reasons as to what caused the Fall of Rome. You might start out reading the Wiki article entitled the Decline of the Roman Empire. However, the role of the Emperor in the collapse of Rome was not very significant when compared to the economic and social factors at work within Roman society in general. Constantine, in my own humble opinion, was fighting a brave retreat more than leading a new renaissance of Roman power. By establishing Constantinople in the East he was trying to salvage what he could of the crumbling Roman Empire - I believe he saw the writing on the wall for the Western part of the Empire, and was trying to bolster the East in order to keep some of Rome healthy. Diocletian is really the key to the puzzle, in my opinion. His attempts at preserving the Empire did succeed for a time, but ultimately Rome collapsed in spite of his valiant efforts due to complex reasons that went beyond the governance and administration of the Empire. There is an entire branch of both Sociology and History that deals with the rise and fall of societies, and includes in its study aspects touching on the economic, moral, health, and political. There is actually a fairly well-written Wiki article about this subject called Societal collapse. Hope that helps - and if you want more information you may follow some of the links at the bottom of those articles. -- Saukkomies 09:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Diocletian's system of government, an answer to the murderous political chaos of the third century, was essentially an exercise in good-faith, the assumption that those in power will give way peacefully, and by their own volition, to successors, already in the wings. Better, yes, than succession by murder, the preferred practice after the death of Septimius Severus, but it still failed to recognise that power has its own attractions, whatever the risks. The late imperial system of government, absolutist and uncompromising as it was, certainly contributed to the continuing decline of the empire. Quite simply it depended too much on the capacity and talents of a limited number of individuals; for when the Emperor was good he was very, very good; and when he was bad...well, he was much more than horrid! Clio the Muse (talk) 02:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Clio! You're back! It's so nice to see you again! -- Saukkomies 11:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Literature / Poetry

Certainly, this question involves subjectivity. But, a valid question, nonetheless. If one were to ask for the "Top 100" (or Top Ten or Top Whatever) Authors of All Time, there is no right or wrong answer, of course. And the definition of "Top" is fuzzy, arguable, and subjective, at best. But, surely, all lists would likely include the "givens" such as Shakespeare, Joyce, Hemingway, etc. Top 100 Movies? ... Citizen Kane, Casablanca, The Godfather, etc. Top 100 Actors? ... Olivier, Hepburn, Gielgud, etc. What would likely constitute the "givens" on a list of Top Poems of All Time? Poems, I say, not poets. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC))

Possibly "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" (Shakespeare), "Do not go gentle into that good night" (Thomas), "The Raven" (Poe) are the first three that come to mind. Also perhaps Ullyses, Stop all the Clocks, Jabberwocky. These are of course, well known, rather than best, because best, as you say, is subjective, but That might give you a start on your own list (which I'm guessing you might be constructing). Steewi (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought of "The Raven" first, then "Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening", "The Road Not Taken" and others, even "A Visit from St. Nicholas" all of which are notable enough to have an article here. It seems a good place to start looking might be the master Category:Poems which contains many subcategories, each containing many notable poems. AUTiger » talk 07:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm on a modernist kick at the moment, so I would add The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock and The Waste Land. Plus some Yeats; possibly Easter, 1916? Algebraist 11:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd add I Am by John Clare, my favourite C19 poet. He prefigured modernist questioning of self-identity in this famous poem, which is very moving when you know the history of his life and mental breakdowns. Also I Wandered Lonely as a Cloud by William Wordsworth should probably be in there. "The Whitsun Weddings" by Philip Larkin. "The Thought Fox" by Ted Hughes. --Richardrj talk email 11:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Reaching back into the past a bit, I'd propose:
* "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey" by Homer
* "Beowulf" by an unkown author
* "The Gathas" by Zoroaster
* "The Rubaiyat" by Omar Khayyám
* "The Aeneid" by Virgil
* "The Psalms of the Bible" attributed to David (this may not match the criteria, since it's a collection of poems rather than just one poem)
* "The Songs of Chu" by Qu Yuan and Song Yu (again, a collection of poems)
* "Oku No Hosomichi" by Matsuo Bashō (yet again another collection of poems)
* "The Rg Veda" by unknown authors (another collection)
-- Saukkomies 09:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

The Metamorphoses, Les Fleurs du mal (if collections of poetry are acceptable), Eugene Onegin (if a "novel in verse" is acceptable). 194.171.56.13 (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

And let's not forget She Walks in Beauty by Byron as well as the Rime of the Ancient Mariner and Kubla Khan by Coleridge. Ooh, and Ozymandias by Shelley. All favourites of mine. Matt Deres (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight and Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. Wrad (talk) 16:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I almost forgot L'après-midi d'un faune. 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
If, Fitzgerald's Khayam, Whitman. DuncanHill (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This list could go on forever, and I'd disagree with some of the above suggestions, but I couldn't believe that The Divine Comedy, Paradise Lost, and The Song of Roland didn't make the list yet. Epic poetry is apparently coming down in the world. :-) Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't overlook that the epic poems from Homer and of Beowulf and the Aeneid were included... It's just that, as you point out, this list could go on forever. -- Saukkomies 08:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! You all touched on some great ones ... including some of my favorites ... and some that I had completely forgotten all about! Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Theologians

It would seem that Greece would have produced the majority of theologians since the New Testament koine is close to demotic Greek. There would be less confusion over "repent" and other words that in translation cause great debate. Most of the theologians seem to be northern Europeans. Was it due to the need to interpret the words? LShecut2nd (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You raise a critical point. Because of the difficulty in understanding the subtleties in another language, it is indeed quite impossible to be able to consistently and accurately convey the entire meaning behind any piece of literature when it is translated into another language. Not only is there the problem of understanding the various meanings behind a given word in another language, but one must also take into consideration what the cultural background was of the society at the time that the work was written in order to fully comprehend what an author is intending by the use of the language. This is usually something that is well beyond the reach of the average dilettante who is attempting to grasp an understanding of a translated text. The New Testament is such an example.
It is precisely for this reason that Medieval Christian Monks and Priests were against the idea of translating the works of the Bible into the common languages of Europe. Although such translations would be more accessible to the average person, these religious leaders believed that it would only confuse the unwashed masses if they began to read the ancient Greek and Hebrew texts in their translated forms. Once Martin Luther and others arrived on the scene in the Age of the Protestant Reformation, these reformers pushed to have translations of the Bible made in the languages spoken by the common people of Europe and elsewhere. The basis for this was that according to many of the reformers of Protestantism there was the idea that each person should be able to establish a direct connection to the Divine on his or her own - without the interference of someone else (such as a Priest). To accomplish this, Protestant adherants were encouraged to learn to read, and then to put their literacy to reading the Bible. It was viewed as unnecessarily complicated to try to get the average person to not only learn to read, but to learn to read Greek and Hebrew, and because of this the Bible was translated in order to make it more accessible to the average person. At first the Catholic Church tried to stop all such translations of the sacred texts, but eventually it had to succumb to the inevitable as more and more translations of the Bible became available. Today Catholics read from these translations just as frequently as anyone else.
Now, as to why there are many theologians from Northern Europe, it is due to the whole business of the Reformation and its fallout over the subsequent centuries, in my opinion. To understand the underlying ramifications of your question, it might be advised to study up on the Reformation, as it is perhaps the most pivotal point in Christianity. Hope that all helps. -- Saukkomies 10:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You might be interested, LShecut2nd, in Charle's Freeman's AD 381: Heretics, Pagans and the Christian State, scheduled for publication by Pimlico next month. The book's chief focus is on the Council of Constantinope in 381, when the doctrine of the Trinity was given its final shape. Held under the auspices of Theodosius the Great, this council, by imperial fiat, effectively established the limits of philosophical and theological debate on this most crucial area of Christian doctrine. After this defining moment in church history there were areas where even the most respected thinkers could not go, not without risking accusations of heresy. It was this, according to Freeman, that caused the Greek intellectual tradition to wither, with authority replacing reason as the arbiter of truth. The later schoolmen merely served as 'gatekeepers' to a closed world. It was not until after the Reformation, and the emergence of a new critical theology in northern Europe, that the intellectual and political constraints of the fourth-century Caesar were finally discarded. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Journalism/reporting

Hi there. Im looking for an article about how media reports news in a way to make the news more interesting. For instance, person A assault person B. A happens to be of a particular ethnic, and B another ethnic. The the media reports the news as: "Purple guy gets beaten up by Grey person in racist attack". And many other instance. Im sure there is such a thing. Is there? kawaputratorque 19:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Yellow journalism is a slightly outdated term for the sort of thing you're referring to. You may want to start there. --Bmk (talk) 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, just what i had in mind. Thanks! kawaputratorque 03:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Bad journalism. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Married U.S. Congresspeople

Does the recent marriage of Mary Bono and Connie Mack IV make them the first married couple to serve concurrently in the U.S. Congress during their marriage? It didn't say on either of their pages, and I thought someone might know. I can't recall any instance where it's happened before. TysK (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC) I've done a bit more research and it appears that Bill Paxon and Susan Molinari were married to each other while both served in the House in the 1990s. However, both represented the same state (New York). Perhaps Bono and Mack are the first married couple from separate states to serve simultaneously? TysK (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is what you're thinking, but Hillary Clinton is both a U.S. senator. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.18 (talk) 13:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

  • This is an excellent example of when I wish that I could search Wikipedia by doing boolean searches of categories. It would be so simple to cross-check the Spouses of US Reps category against the US Reps category! Oh, well. --M@rēino 23:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] finding a bunch of cash on the pavement.

Okay, so if you dig up a $million on your land or whatever, you're supposed to pay taxes, what 25%-30%, right?

But except for murder, almost all crime has a statute of limitations. So...since you just found some money, shouldn't you just not tell anyone, ie put it somewhere you can be sure no one will ever look (for example, a 1974 agricultural report or something).

Then, after 8 years, you save 25% by not having to pay! That's a reasonable return on investment, isn't it, 3% per year, guaranteed?

Only now, how do you PROVE that you committed the tax evasion in 2008, and not when you start spending the money?

Obviously this is hypothetical and I'm not asking for legal advice, but I think it's an interesting scenario...tax evasion based on statute of limitations and weighing the risks on a return on investment basis.... am I missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.2 (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, your math is off, when you calculate compound interest. See here. Llamabr (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Not that far off, 2.8% is the actual percentage. User:Krator (t c) 23:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it's more like 3.7% (based on 8 years and 25% tax). Remember, the computation is based on investing what would have been the after-tax amount, or 3/4 of the whole. 1.037^8 = 1.3373 ~= 4/3. Incidentally, I can't find anything on the Net that talks about whether found money actually is taxable income. Given that lottery wins aren't, I don't see why it should be. Unless of course you live in a country where lottery wins are taxable. --Anon, 03:00 UTC, January 19, 2008.

I googled "statute of limitations tax evasion" and it seems criminal tax crimes are either 3 or 6 years, with the scenario I invented probably being the latter (" for offenses involving the defrauding or attempting to defraud the United States or any agency thereof, whether by conspiracy or not, and in any manner;"). If it really is 6 years, that's an even better ROI on not telling anyone! But, again, how do you prove when the crime took place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.2 (talk) 23:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Video-tape yourself including a sample of 228 Ra (Half-life: 6.7 years) in a sealed container with the money, then analyse the number of decayed atoms when you go and prove the age? User:Krator (t c) 00:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
IANAL, but surely a criminal statue of limitations will not prevent a civil suit to recover your back taxes? Algebraist 00:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
It's easy enough to prove that you had a certain amount of cash on a given date without mucking around with radioactive material. On the date in question, create a text file saying something like "J. Q. Public, social security number 123-45-6789, has a collection of $100 bills with the following serial numbers: [...]" and publish a cryptographic hash of that file to Usenet. (I think there's a Usenet group specifically for this purpose, but I can't remember the name.) As long as you keep the text file and the cash, you can prove to anyone that you had the cash on that date by showing them the file, the cash, and independent evidence from several Usenet archives that you posted the hash on the claimed date. More precisely, you can prove that someone had the cash and was willing to claim that you had it, which is good enough for most circumstances. -- BenRG (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Tax evasion is an ongoing crime. Every year you don't report the taxes is a new event. Wesley Snipes is currently on trial for tax evasion covering several years, dating back to at least 2000. Corvus cornixtalk 00:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
what? you don't report taxes, you report income. There's no line-item for "income BEFORE this tax year which you didn't report but knew you should have". it's about income in the year you're filling your taxes out for... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.51.122.2 (talk) 01:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
WhatCorvus is saying (I think) is that each year you fail to report the income is a crime. So if you found the money in 2000 you commited a crime each subsequent year you did not report it. 161.222.160.8 (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
And what the other poster is saying is that that's wrong. Your tax return for 2000 covers your income for 2000; omitting income that year doesn't mean that your tax return for 2001 is automatically false and illegal as well: that one is about your income for 2001. I certainly wouldn't know, but it makes sense to me. --Anon, 06:40 UTC, January 19, 2008.
I think that the above discussion is getting confused with semantics. Corvus cornix said that the evasion is an ongoing crime, and every year that you don't report it is a new event. But Corvus is not saying that you would need to report it on the following year's return ... just that you would need to report it (some way, somehow). In other words, if I found the money in 2000 and I falsely filed a tax return evading the found money in 2000, then I committed the crime of tax evasion in 2000. In 2001 and in 2002 and in 2003 (etc.), I still knew about my evasion from 2000, and I still have an obligation to report it. I would not report it in my 2001 or 2002 or 2003 tax return, but I would still need to report it some way, somehow. (Perhaps, file an amended 2000 return.) So, the evasion continues from 2000 into 2001, 2002, 2003, etc. -- regardless of whether or not I file a new tax return in 2001, 2002, 2003. Maybe this is a better way to think about it. In 2001, I was supposed to file a 2001 tax return and I was also supposed to file an amended 2000 return. In 2002, I was supposed to file a 2002 tax return and I was also supposed to file an amended 2000 return. And so on, each year. So - yes, my 2001 tax return was correct and legit - that's not the problem. That I failed to file my amended 2000 return is the problem ... and that is the ongoing crime. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC))
Yes, that's what he said. What none of us here apparently knows is whether it's correct. And of course it might vary from one country to another. --Anon, 11:03 UTC, Jan. 19.
I happen to know a Canadian income tax expert (who must also remain anonymous). In Canada, if you fail to report income in one year, you are not committing a new crime in subsequent years by failing to report that your earlier tax return was false. However, income tax evasion may be treated as an indictable offence (i.e. more serious, like a felony), which means there is no statute of limitations. So you can still be prosecuted for the original crime. And once it's been exposed and tax assessed on the previously unreported income, you're still required to pay it, with interest, no matter how much time has passed since your original deception. On the other hand, as I suspected, in Canada money you just find (and are allowed to keep) isn't taxable income in the first place. --Anon, 22:01 UTC, Jan. 20/08.

Noting that the above focusses on US tax law (I assume), I'd like to point out that in traditional English tax law (and thus Commonwealth countries such as Australian) a "windfall gain" is excluded from the definition of Income, so that it is by definition excluded from "declarable" or "taxable" income. So you wouldn't need to declare $100 that you found on the street at all, as far as tax law goes.

However, you do have an obligation to make reasonable enquiries so as to effect its return to its true owner - e.g. reporting it to the police.

Of course, if by "digging up" you mean mining, then all subeterranean natural resources belong to the Crown and so (in theory) you should deliver it to the government unless you have a mining licence.

As for reporting income that you "forgot" about - you have an obligation to amend your tax return to reflect the true figure, if you have realised that you made a "mistake". So what you do, in fact, is amend your 2000 tax return, as Joseph outlined above. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)