Humanities desk
< October 9	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 11 >

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.

October 10

Inbreeding

Is there anyway to prevent the negative effect of inbreeding in the South China Tiger? All captive South China Tiger today descend from 2 male and 4 female caught in the 1950s and 1970s. What if there weren't any wild ones left? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry -- please ask this question at the Wikipedia Science Desk.--68.175.44.30 (talk) 00:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Peace Prize 2009 - taxed?

Will the Nobel Peace Prize awarded to US President Obama be taxed as a donation? If so, how much will be retained? Thanks for info. --AlexSuricata (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, this IRS publication has a section called "Pulitzer, Nobel, and similar prizes." You know, just in case you win one. The prize money (about $1.4 million in US dollars currently) is taxable, but Obama has stated he is going to give the money to charity, so as explained in the section, assuming he follows the listed rules, all the $1.4 million will end up at the charity (or charities) and the government will get none. If it had been taxed, since Obama is already in the highest tax bracket of 35% (see Income tax in the United States for details), the federal government would have taken US$490,000 for itself. Tempshill (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to re-check that publication, but above a certain income threshold, U.S. taxpayers' deductions on Schedule A drop below 100%, and above a different threshold they become subject to the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). The Obamas' income should be well above both thresholds. The U.S. Congress established both thresholds to reduce tax avoidance by the very rich, although the AMT can now affect some relatively modest middle-class income taxes. So, while the Obamas might be able to claim the whole $1.4 million charitable donation as a deduction against the $1.4 million addition to their 2009 taxable income, they might not be allowed to reduce the resulting taxes 100% (or dollar for dollar). I used to prepare tax returns at a much lower bracket in the early part of this decade, but haven't kept up with all the subsequent changes. —— Shakescene (talk) 04:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Shakescene: Mr Obama is very likely to incur a stiff tax on the award, and be able to claim only a partial deduction for the charitable contribution. The most tax-efficient way to handle it would be for the prize money to be transferred directly to the charity, but this is unlikely to be permitted. Alternatively, he could donate the post-tax prize money to charity, which would be (as per previous post) something on the order of $1 million. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or, maybe not. If the gift is to the President of the United States, rather than to [private citizen] Barack Hussein Obama II, it would not be taxable. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shakescene, I am not and never have been a tax preparer, but my reading of the publication is that (if the conditions are met), the prize is excluded from income and need not appear anywhere on the return—it's not a Schedule A deduction. -- Coneslayer (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Coneslayer — upon first reading, I was surprised that the IRS went out of their way in that publication to explain about the rules to follow to avoid taxation, because I had assumed that Obama just could have deducted the whole prize amount after gifting it ... but I had forgotten that high-income people only get partial deductions now for charitable contributions. Hence the publication going out of its way, etc. Tempshill (talk) 05:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

¶ On reading that section of Publication 525, I'd have to agree with Coneslayer, too. However, there is that point (3 c) about having to return an unexpected award first (so that you can preassign and designate it). I think that the awarding of the Nobel Prize has been announced, but that it won't be presented until President Obama visits Norway. Although this will lengthen the page, I'll save others the chore of opening that link by pasting it below.—— Shakescene (talk) 05:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“

Pulitzer, Nobel, and similar prizes. If you were awarded a prize in recognition of accomplishments in religious, charitable, scientific, artistic, educational, literary, or civic fields, you generally must include the value of the prize in your income. However, you do not include this prize in your income if you meet all of the following requirements.

You were selected without any action on your part to enter the contest or proceeding.
You are not required to perform substantial future services as a condition for receiving the prize or award.
The prize or award is transferred by the payer directly to a governmental unit or tax-exempt charitable organization as designated by you. The following conditions apply to the transfer.

(a) You cannot use the prize or award before it is transferred.

(b) You should provide the designation before the prize or award is presented to prevent a disqualifying use. The designation should contain:

(i) The purpose of the designation by making a reference to section 74(b)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code,

(ii) A description of the prize or award,

(iii) The name and address of the organization to receive the prize or award,

(iv) Your name, address, and taxpayer identification number, and

(v) Your signature and the date signed.

(c) In the case of an unexpected presentation, you must return the prize or award before using it (or spending, depositing, investing it, etc., in the case of money) and then prepare the statement as described in (b).

(d) After the transfer, you should receive from the payer a written response stating when and to whom the designated amounts were transferred.

These rules do not apply to scholarship or fellowship awards. See Scholarships and fellowships, later

”

Aren't Nobel Prizes always awarded to individuals in their capacities as those individuals? I can't see any Nobel (or other prize of this sort) going to a position; it's surely given to B.H.O., II. Moreover, if the prize were given to the President, wouldn't the money be somewhat of a permanent possession of the presidency, just as the British crown jewels are a possession of the Crown, not a possession of Edward Windsor's niece? Nyttend (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative Constitutional Engineering: An Inquiry into Structures, Incentives and Outcomes

Could anyone who has a copy of, or access to, this book please take a glance at the chapter entitled, "Alternating Presidentialism: A Proposal" and summarise/explain the mechanics of the author's idea? I can't get my hands on a copy of the book, and a Google search reveals only the vaguest description of the proposed system.

If anyone happens to know where one could find a scan/ebook/transcription of the volume online, that would also be incredibly helpful! Thanks! ╟─Treasury Tag►stannator─╢ 11:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-day

Why was it that in France, 5 was considered the middle of the day? 174.153.9.246 (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who says it was? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, remember that historically in France, Spain, and Italy (to varying degrees in each country), there was a several-hours' siesta anywhere from 12-4pm or thereabouts so the workday "restarted" for the second half of the day, and dinner has traditionally been eaten later on the Continent (especially Spain) than in Anglo-American locales. --68.175.44.30 (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

France went to decimal time during the French Revolution. At 10 hours per day, noon was at 5:00. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They also adopted the French revolutionary calendar. Both these "innovations" were soon dropped. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1st Place Gadget850
Honorable Mention to JackofOz
Baseball Bugs: "Lost in the sauce"...as usual —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.244.107.246 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 10 October 2009

- Comment: I really dislike D.B.s by experienced editors hiding behind their IP. hydnjo (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Ref Desk talk page (in a couple of minutes when I've had a chance to write something there). --Tango (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't drink. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots 21:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That explains a LOT of things! DOR (HK) (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, yeh, I'm sure I should take it up. Like Bluto said to Flounder in Animal House, "My advice to you is to start drinking heavily." And Otter said to Flounder, "Better listen to him. He's Pre-Med." Ironically, they ended up homeless. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was this time measured from sunrise (as was common at one time)? In which case, the 5th hour was near the middle of the day. --Tango (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can President Obama keep the Nobel Prize Money

As President I thought that gifts from outside the US belonged to the United States. There are very specific guidelines for receiving such gifts so is it correct for President Obama to give to a charity of his choice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpatter3 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What guidelines are you referring to? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rules are described here[1], but they concern gifts from "foreign heads of state", which the Nobel isn't. Whether any other rules apply I know not. PhGustaf (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of what I was thinking. If this were a gift from the King of Sweden or something, that would be a different story. But maybe there are rules about private gifts as well? →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweden has nothing to do with the Nobel Peace Prize, just sayin'. Nobel couldn't trust the Swedes with such an important decision. :-) The prize will be awarded in December in Oslo, as usual. - Hordaland (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(and if anyone is confused, the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded by Norway, as specified in Nobel's will. At the time, Sweden and Norway were in a union, Sweden had foreign policy powers, and making sure the peace prize was awarded by a country which didn't have a foreign policy was a way of making it less subject to international vagaries) --Saalstin (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cited source[2] says the White House Gift Unit sees to the disposition of foreign official gifts that the President and First Lady do not retain, and give most domestic gifts that they do not keep to charitable organizations. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, as mentioned in our article (well it used to contradict itself but I fixed that), no one knows why Nobel chose to have Norway award the prize since he never said although your reason is often cited and a few other reasons as discussed at [3] Nil Einne (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, near the bottom of this page, it explains what Theodore Roosevelt did with the money. No detail about Woodrow Wilson though. meltBanana 03:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wilson stashed the money in a Swedish bank because he was worried about his financial security and the weak krona. Seriously dude, you're the president. Not cool. 83.250.236.212 (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What tools do you need to know to test a theory?

Do I have to be an expert in astrology to know whether it is nonsense or not? Considering that Correlation is not causation, I suppose that statistics won't be enough to rule it out, unless we find no correlation at all between planets and my love affairs, mood and career advance. However, with so many people, love affairs, moods and careers, we will always find some correlation somewhere between a person and his favorite stars.Quest09 (talk) 17:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to be an expert, but you certainly need access to one. You need to work out what the chance of the astrologer being right is if astrology doesn't work (what is the chance of a random person meeting a tall dark stranger?) and then if the astrologer is right more often than that (probably after making predictions about a lot of people, but I suppose they could make lots of predictions about the same person) by a significant margin (how significant depends on how confident you want to be) then you can conclude that astrology does work. Otherwise, you can't really draw any conclusion (you can put limits on the accuracy of it but you can't conclude that it doesn't work at all). The challenge comes in working out the probability assuming astrology doesn't work (that assumption is called the null hypothesis) - how you do it will depend on the nature of the predictions. The mathematics involved in working out how much the astrologer needs to be correct to conclude at a given confidence level that astrology is better than guesswork is called hypothesis testing. --Tango (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's enough to be an expert on human nature because then you are well equipped to decide which is more likely: that positions of planets many years ago when you were born control your love affairs, mood and career advance or a few people seize an opportunity to make money by fooling others (and possibly themselves) with probably harmless nonsense. You decide. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OP sounded like they wanted to test it scientifically, though, which requires a little more than an intuitive feeling of which is more likely. --Tango (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps yes, if you were trying to prove (with whatever degree of certainty) that it was nonsense. But since it seems like nonsense on its face, the burden of proof is on those who assert that it isn't nonsense, and you're free to put it in the "nonsense" basket until they do so (don't hold your breath). As Carl Sagan famously said, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and for astrology there is none. --Sean 19:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True - what I described was actually how to demonstrate (I don't like the word "prove" in the context of science) that astrology does work. Demonstrating that it doesn't work is much harder, but as you say, completely unnecessary. --Tango (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that, for Astrology as for other esoteric disciplines, the way that non-practitioners think that practitioners think that they work (if you're following me) isn't necessarily the way that practitioners actually think that they work: equally, the actual points of some may not be what they outwardly appear; hence some debunking may be aimed at "straw beliefs", or be adopting an over-literal approach. Also remember that, just as many natural and manufacturing processes were known to happen or work long before they were scientifically explained, so some occult (literally "hidden") practices are followed by people who think they work but don't claim to understand how. Bearing those points in mind, by all means study the arguments over Astrology and other such matters and draw your own conclusions. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As with any religion, if you think it works for you, then it probably does. Religion is a cultural and faith-based thing. It does not necessarily stand up to scientific scrutiny. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the argument above that it is up to astrology to prove itself... that's not how scientific reasoning works, and for good reason. (Yes, it seems rather extraordinary that the planets and etc. could have much affect on ours lives, but no more extraordinarily than cosmic rays, germ theory, DNA, and quantum physics if you have not been exposed to them. "Extraordinary" is the eye of the beholder, big time, when it comes to weird science.)

That being said... the biggest problem with trying to make sense of astrology has to do with the very vagueness of the predicted claims. If the claims were strong, you could test it, and yes, statistics would do a pretty good job of distinguishing between whether the correlations are strong enough to be taken seriously. (You'd have to do so blindly, of course—you'd be running horoscopes on people without telling them the results, and then watching their lives.) But astrological claims are always very, very vague—you'll meet someone today (who doesn't?), you'll get into an argument (happens all the time!), you'll think about your family (yep). That's why they aren't generally falsifiable, and it never even comes close to being testable (though, one could argue, that they can't possibly work that well for people in solitary confinement!). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you have stated is true about predictions of the future in general. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and no. Some people have made rather good predictions about the future that are rather specific. They don't use the stars, or magic, or the Bible. They use things like existing trends, ideas about what will probably be possible, and good guesses. See futurology. These methods can be tested for veracity, if their predictions are strong enough so that their being accurate is distinguishable from their being false (which is what falsifiability is all about). --Mr.98 (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. I was thinking more of psychics, palm readers, etc. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can the State breach a plea bargain and sentence the criminal?

I mean, i.e. Could the Canadian Government breach Karla Homolka's plea bargain and sentence her to life in prison? If not, why not?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.50.86.96 (talk) 22:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because you can only breach trust once, and nobody will like you very much. Keeping faith is absolutely essential to anything resembling functional society. Vranak (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once the first trial was finally over and she has been convicted, a new trial would be double jeopardy, which is forbidden under Canadian law. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell from that article what the nature of the plea bargain was. If she was tried and convicted of a lesser offence trying her for a greater offence would not be double jeopardy - it's a different offence. --Tango (talk) 23:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The plea was for manslaughter, and I would think it's unlikely they could then turn around and try her for murder, especially if that possibility was on the table when the plea bargain was agreed upon. If she could be proven to have lied under oath about her involvement, though, they could perhaps get her on a perjury charge. But it's the government's burden to prove its case in a timely manner, and to get it right the first time. This principle was established to prevent the government from continually re-trying someone until they get the answer they want. Unfortunately, sometimes the guilty do not seem to get sufficient punishment for their deeds. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Had she been found not guilty of manslaughter, that would preclude a later trial for murder, but I don't think double jeopardy laws would prevent such a trial after a conviction for a lesser offence (without the jury being asked about the greater offence). As you say, it is to prevent multiple trials until they get a conviction, but they got a conviction the first time, so it shouldn't apply. The only thing I can see that would stop them would be the plea bargain - whether that is legally binding or just bad PR to violate, I don't know. --Tango (talk) 00:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not lawyers (or I'm not, anyway), but one would think the professionals would have been able to figure something out to keep her behind bars longer. On the other hand, it's curious that the tape turned up after the fact. There must be a story behind that. Which there is. It seems like a case in which the investigators were both constrained and maybe could have done a better job. Unfortunately, those things happen also. It occurs to me that none of us have absolutely answered the question. It's a hypothetical, and we probably would need a Canadian lawyer to answer with complete certainty. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a Canadian lawyer (or, at least, a lawyer) will turn up and help up - I will watch this space! --Tango (talk) 00:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I am a lawyer or anything, but surely the government or judicial system of Ontario would have a say in the matter first. There would be a long way to go before the case reached a federal court. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karla Homolka#Inquiry and Conclusion seems of some relevance although this important source [4] doesn't work. However [5] may be of some interest. Nil Einne (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That latter link is an excellent find - the relevant section starts on page 12 of the PDF (page 10 on the page numbers in the document) and even mentions this case. --Tango (talk) 08:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly it also appears to be the copy and pasted source for the section I've linked to in the article so I've now removed it as a copyvio. In fact it's the new location for the broken link I think. The specific stuff related to honouring plea bargains is also here [6] in HTML form if people don't like PDFs. Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They may not be able to. See estoppel. In different jurisdictions courts have held the crown to their promises in different circumstances. The Australian government was once held (case name escapes me) to not use a defence they promised not to.203.214.104.166 (talk) 03:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]