Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 April 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.

April 3

If Japan attacked Russia instead of the USA during WWII

Supposing Japan had, instead of attacking Pearl Harbour, laucnhed a full scale attack on the Soviet Union in 1941 to support the German invasion from the west, do you thinkt he outcome of the war might have been different? I know we can never say for sure, and there will always be debate, but I'd like to know some opnions and reasoning. We are insanely lucky they didn't do just that and succeed.--92.251.179.38 (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of what Japan wanted and had planned to seize was to the south (oil, etc.), not in Siberia. Japan and Germany did not closely coordinate strategic plans, and the whole situation would have had to be rather different for that to happen, probably... AnonMoos (talk) 00:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) The attack on Pearl Harbour wasn't really to support the Germans. While it isn't a coincidence that the attack happened at the same time as the war in Europe was going on, it was a separate conflict. Japan wanted to increase its influence and control in Asia and the US wanted to stop them. The attack on Pearl Harbour was intended to destroy the US Pacific fleet, which was the main way for the US to stop Japan's plans in Asia. Therefore, I can't see why Japan would want to attack the USSR. --Tango (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Aside from every other objection, the navy would have had little to do in a Siberian campaign and, given its intense interservice rivalry with the army and fear of the army grabbing all the glory, would surely have fought the idea tooth and claw. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Going with the premise of the question - any Japanese attack or threat of attack to the USSR would have affected the Battle of Moscow, which the Soviets constantly reinforced with fresh divisions withdrawn from the east. Alansplodge (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There was Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact and I find no reason Japan should attack USSR. Oda Mari (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There was also the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact between Germany and the Soviet Union and there was no reason for Germany to attack the Soviet Union. Yet they did. Japan had more reason than the Germans: to aid their allies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.142.219 (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

From a global perspective (and one of hindsight), there may not have been a significant strategic reason for Germany to attack the USSR (except perhaps to secure the east flanks of Fortress Europe from an ambitious government equally unrestrained by effective democratic institutions), but - despite the two ideologies having much in common - the wave that Hitler'a Nazis rode to power was largely driven by anti-Bolshevik rhetoric. It was incongruous with this rhetoric that a war with a respectable and genetically commiserate race like the British should persist while the vile Jewish-controlled Soviets Slavs shared the fruits of the Polish occupation. History often isn't a game of Risk. All of the same historically under-cited influences that, for example, make health care reform so unexpectedly difficult and unpalatable in the United States today were equally in play during decisions that appear so outwardly military in nature.NByz (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I remember, it wasn't just an anti-Bolshevik thing but a racist thing in general. Ideologically, the Nazis regarded the Slavic-inhabited East European spaces as potential Lebensraum for the Aryan German people, which should expand and settle into it and rule it as the master race. In contrast, they didn't officially have such plans for the Western allied nations, since Western Europeans and Americans were regarded as equals or nearly equals, albeit Jew-infested.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Japanese did at least consider attacking Russia, but after an early incursion decided not to bother the USSR. As noted above, this contributed to the Russian victory at Moscow, which given the Russian commander at Khalkhin Gol has a fitting full circular feeling. 91.84.180.57 (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Question related to capital punishment in British India

When political prisoners were hanged, what did the British government do with their dead bodies? Would the government allow the relatives to bury/cremate the bodies? Or would the government dispose of the bodies themselves to avoid public anger? Has there been any case in which body of a political prisoner was disposed of by the government themselves?--117.204.84.193 (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In response to your last question, see shooting of the Romanov family. I know it's not British India, but if it can happen in Russia, I don't see why not in British India. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 02:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Because the British raj was not made up of semi-desperate revolutionaries with few restraints or inhibitions of morality in the middle of a rather unstable overall situation? AnonMoos (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In the UK, executed criminals were generally buried within the precincts of the prison where they were executed. I would be surprised if it was any different in British India. Capital Punishment Amendment Act 1868, Section 6: "The body of every offender executed shall be buried within the walls of the prison within which judgment of death is executed on him: Provided, that if one of Her Majesty’s Principal Secretaries of State is satisfied on the representation of the visiting justices of a prison that there is not convenient space within the walls thereof for the burial of offenders executed therein, he may, by writing under his hand, appoint some other fit place for that purpose, and the same shall be used accordingly."[1]. There was a seperate legal system for India, but the English legal system was the basis of it. Alansplodge (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on your point of view, but generally you would have to do something more than have a political disagreement with the authorities to get yourself hung (like murdering people for instance). The exception might be mutiny by a member of the armed forces, but even then, few mutineers would have been given the death penalty (unless you know better). The exception was the aftermath of the Indian Mutiny, when I can only say that there was excessive and shameful barbarity on both sides. Alansplodge (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

After the execution of Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev, their bodies were taken out of the prison and buried in secret. --Soman (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Shooting a policeman is likely to get you hanged in a number of countries, even today. Even in India. One man's political prisoner is another's terrorist. Alansplodge (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I doubt Soman's point. Firstly, Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev were not buried but cremated. I don't know if that was done in secret. Bhagath Singh wrote to his brother or other kin about their taking possession of his dead body. If the practice was not to hand over the bodies, he wouldn't have written so. -117.204.93.142 (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The bodies of the three were recovered. They were surely given proper burials afterwards. --Soman (talk) 18:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

American Revolution

How would the American Revolution have turned out if Louis XVI hadn't supported the colonists? --70.129.184.122 (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably badly for the Americans, and probably better for the British. While the British commanders were legendarily idiotic during the early stages of the War, as soon as it became clear that the little uprising was gaining momentum, the shear weight of the British Navy and Army could have easily crushed the Revolution. Indeed, it was well on its way to doing so, after initial reversals, Britain gained control of New York and was busy harassing Washington's badly paid, poorly fed, and undersupplied band of soldiers with its well organized army all over New Jersey and Pennsylvania. France's involvement, especially in terms of naval help, probably was the deciding factor in the war. See France in the American Revolutionary War for a more thorough discussion over French involvement and the role they played in helping America gain its independence. --Jayron32 03:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

And probably there would have been no French Revolution either. When French soldiers returned to their impoverished homes with with tales of a successful revolution caused only by a threpenny tax on tea leaves, you can guess what went through their minds. "The peasants paid taxes to the king, taxes to the church, taxes and dues to the lord of the manor, as well as numerous indirect taxes on wine, salt, and bread."[2] Although it has to be said, a lot of this taxation was to pay for the war with Britain. Alansplodge (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So basically, since the American Revolution is responsible for all other democratic governments, the world would still be under absolute monarchs if Louis XVI hadn't been an idiot? --70.129.184.122 (talk) 20:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

No. These type of questions are of course impossible to answer with certainty. Surely a lot of things would have been different had Louis XVI had acted differently, but the main force that moves history is not conscious political decisions. The separation between British colonial rule and its colonies were bound to happen at some point, colonialism was a system that gradually became anachronistic. Likewise the feudal rule in France could not have lasted forever, either. Feudalism and mercantile colonialism were systems bound to be defeated by new emerging classes. --Soman (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Remember, France had a few more revolutions and other changes in government after the original French Revolution. It's impossible to know how things would have turned out if history had happened differently, but France would not be ruled by an absolute monarch. Buddy431 (talk) 23:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I think your premise that "the American Revolution is responsible for all other democratic governments" is just ever so slightly over-stated. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 21:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Britain was not ruled by an absulute monarch in 1777, neither was it fully democratic by today's standards. In an alternative reality with no successful American Revolution, it is possible to invisage the American Colonies developing self-government and independance in the same way as Canada and Australia. Alansplodge (talk) 22:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

But would Canada and Australia have been granted independence without Britain first learning the lesson that "opposing independence will lead to a costly war which we may very well lose" ? StuRat (talk) 16:10, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Good point; the war certainly caused a reappraisal of colonial policy. However that might have happened even if Britain had won; "Next to a battle lost, the greatest misery is a battle gained." (The Duke of Wellington)[3]. Alansplodge (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

True, and that would depend on how costly the war was. If the Americans had folded at the first sign of force, the British might well have responded to all future requests for independence in the same way. StuRat (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The "no French Revolution without the American revolution"-premise is also very questionable at best. It was certainly another incentive, but most of the important factors for the French Revolution was already in place (or would be later anyway). --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That's what they taught me at school (admittedly a while ago); a quick browse on the net shows that they're still teaching it[4]. Alansplodge (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a fairly common nationalist distortion. At school in the UK, we were taught nothing of the sort. Our own nationalist distortion attributes modern democracy to the 1832 Reform Act. But as well as the French and American revolutions, there was a contemporary democratic (and monarchist) revolution in Poland, which although unsucesful was highly influential. The picture is very complex, and the myth of America as the fountainhead of modern democracy is a fairly obvious simplification. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:03, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I went to school in the UK too. Alansplodge (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The link you gave does not say "no French Revolution without the American revolution". This kind of categorical "what-if" statements are usually avoided. Perhaps you have memorized your lesson in a simplified version.--91.148.159.4 (talk) 19:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say "no French Revolution" either, I said "probably no...". Let's change that to "possibly" and call it a day. Alansplodge (talk) 20:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

When the American Revolution had dragged on, with the British able to invade and control eastern ports and rivers, without the French aid it would likely have petered out into a backwoods insurgency, if the British had offered some redress of real grievances short of independence, which would have put the American merchant and financial class back on the road to prosperity. In the 1934 Maxwell Anderson play "Valley Forge," performed on stage in 1934 and made into a TV movie in 1975 [5] Washington, heading exhausted and starving troops during the bitter winter of 1777-1778, with widespread desertions, meets in a truce at an isolated barn with General Howe, who says that influential men in Britain agree that the colonists had some valid grievances, and that many of the demands can be satisfied, with a continued relation in some form to the Crown, if Washington agrees to an armistice. In the play, Washington is ready to agree to the proposal, but an expression of continued loyalty by some Virginia troops gives him the spirit to reject the proposal and continue the fight for independence. The U.S. victories at Cowpens and Kings Mountain were critical, and done by U.S. forces, but The French forces were necessary to the final great British defeat at Yorktown. Edison (talk) 19:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The entry of France in the war caused the British to make a radical change in general strategy. The theater of war had been enlarged to include all of North America, especially the Caribbean. For the British the stakes were not just the 13 colonies but the entire empire in America. The Caribbean was vitally important--more so than the continental colonies. So British strategy shifted from the continent to the Caribbean. The British seized a number of French islands, sought to engage and defeat the French fleet. The defense of Jamaica was strengthened. On the continent, in support of this change of focus, the British withdrew from Philadelphia, retaining a narrow enclave anchored firmly on New York City. Operations were shifted to the southern colonies were it was hoped that the capture of Savannah and Charleston would raise loyalist sympathies and create a strong base for further operations. This plan proved too ambitious. Savannah was taken, and much of Georgia, and, eventually, Charleston, but the widespread loyalist support did not arise as hoped. Operations became mired in bitter partisan warfare in the Carolina backcountry. Then Spain joined the war on the side of her ally France. Spain quickly captured West Florida. The British fleet was able to range boldly through the Caribbean, but it had little effect and before long a combined French-Spanish force threatned the Barbadoes and prepared to invade Jamaica. So, another shift in stragegy occured. On the continent the decision was made to abandon Carolina and shift troops to Virginia, with the hope of operating in some kind of conjunction with the forces at New York City. "But this was more a salvage operation designed more to hang on and harass than a means toward ultiamte victory, and it foundered on a momentary loss of naval supremacy to the French", which lead, of course, to Yorktown. (the above analysis and quotes all come from D.W. Meinig, The Shaping of America, Volume 1: Atlantic America.

So, how would thing have turned out if France (and Spain) hadn't joined against Britain? Who can say? One could argue that a decisive American victory would be far far less likely, with instead the war either culminating in a decisive British victory or a drawn-out stalemate. In either case it is unlikely, in my opinion, that the colonies would have been granted full independence. Pfly (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Personality Disorder Name

I have recently become interested in personality disorders and psychology. Today, I was reading a list of questions asked to determine personality disorder [6] when I came across the question, "Do you tend to be critical of loved ones, sometimes holding them to higher standards than you hold yourself to?" Most other questions I could place as relating to specific (or perhaps two or three) disorders, but this question seemed quite specific. My question is: what disorder or class of disorders would this question relate to? Thanks, 12.213.80.36 (talk) 05:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be a trait typical of Narcissistic, Histrionic, or (possibly) Schizoid personality disorders, depending on the answers to other questions. It reflects a tendency to to transfer blame/anger onto others, making them responsible for negative events in life. --Ludwigs2 05:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

But the thing is, people who do that probably don't realize it, so wouldn't check that box on the form. StuRat (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

With no irony, I would say that is standard human nature, so it sounds to me like you're reading one of those throwaway quizzes that try to get you to subscribe to Psychology Today. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, this is not a good quiz. a professional therapist would might use something like this if s/he already had suspicions about a particular disorder, but it would be a survey specific to that disorder, and would be diagnostic, not conclusive in and of itself. I don't think even Psychology Today would stoop quite that low; maybe Elle or Cosmo?

It is actually a sign of an always-eventually-fatal brain infection. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

RGB color ranges for human skin, nails, hair, and eyes

Please see RGB color range for human skin and the next three questions at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing.
-- Wavelength (talk) 06:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed your link (was going to an edit diff). --Anon, 00:54 UTC, 2010-04-04.

Thank you for your good intentions, but I meant it to go there, so that readers could still read at least the question (by scrolling down) even after that discussion has been archived. However, it is not important enough for me to change it back. --- Wavelength (talk) 04:48, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Well, when it's archived (in another day or so) it will be RGB color range for human skin, so people can then go there. --Anon, 07:18 UTC, April 5, 2010.

Consanguinity

In Regency England, could a woman legally marry her half-brother's son, please? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.80.143.189 (talk) 06:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This was regulated by the "Table of Kindred and Affinity" which was an appendix to the Anglican Book of Common Prayer. You can find the details here[7]. The commentary by a genealogist suggests that "half sibs are not mentioned, but I think the inclusion of half sibs is implicit in the general terms 'brother' or 'sister'." Alansplodge (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Freedom of Speech during American Civil War

Were people's freedoms limited during the war? Like Freedom of Speech? If someone from Union territory expressed opinions favorable or sympathetic to the Confederates, were they ever arrested or killed? If someone was a vocal opponent of the war? Anything like that? ScienceApe (talk) 06:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Habeas Corpus was suspended in the Union, and Lincoln felt free to disregard the supreme court's decision in Ex parte Merryman because Judge Taney and the supreme court had strongly offended northern public opinion in their Dred Scott ruling, and respect for the U.S. supreme court in the north of the U.S. was at an all time low. People were not normally shot just for expressing opinions, but those like Clement Vallandigham who were seen as deliberately attempting to undermine the U.S. war effort did suffer consequences... AnonMoos (talk) 07:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

See General Order Number 38, which allowed the U.S. government to execute anyone in Ohio who opposed the war, as a traitor. It was also considered treason to criticize the order, and got you a trial before a military tribunal for having "disloyal sentiments, overall a policy any totalitarian regime could have been proud of. Edison (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Whatever -- Lincoln was by no means enthusiastic over Burnside's actions, and quickly put the kibosh on any idea of executing Vallandigham. The situation of the time -- i.e. the complete and utter breakdown of public trust in the U.S. supreme court (due to Taney's very ill-advised past actions), and the use of effective martial law -- put powers into the hands of the U.S. federal government which could have theoretically been used in a toatlitarian manner, but the fact is that generally they weren't. AnonMoos (talk) 13:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln shut down a few newspapers and had their owners imprisoned when they printed (apparently) false information that he thought would lead to desertion. But on the whole there were plenty of expressions against Lincoln, the Union, for the Confederacy, etc. Basically Lincoln shut things down if it seemed like they were actually going to cause desertions, but only actually acted in a few circumstances. There was still plenty of anti-Lincoln, anti-war stuff published in the North during the entire war. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Some good information on this general topic is covered in this section of a wikipedia article about national emergencies:[8] The OP's question was about the Civil War, but the US government continues to stifle freedom of the press in terms of coverage of the wars it has been in. That's not to say that the government was unjustified. "Loose lips sink ships". In the DVD collection of essays by Walter Cronkite, he talked about WWII censorship, and how they could only publish information which was reasonably expected to already be known by the enemy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It was not just the Civil War, and it was not just information which could sink ships. In 1798 John Adams had the Alien and Sedition Acts passed to silence criticism during an undeclared war with France [9]. During World War 1, Wilson threw people in jail who criticized him, shut down newspapers which criticized him, and deported aliens who criticized him, via the Espionage Act, the Sedition Act, and the Trading with the Enemies Act. [10]. Edison (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are some strong arguments that WWI was much worse in terms of suppression of dissent. WWII had its own censorship/secrecy regime as well but it was much more voluntary on the whole than WWI. All of these things seem rather unimaginable today—post-Vietnam in particular, the idea that you could censor political critics in just a ham-handed legal way has basically gone out the window. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

is it true if you're poor you can't keep a really expensive gift or won item, you have to sell it?

Is it true that if you're poor in America you can't keep a really expensive gift or won item, or something really expensive that you came to legally possess in some other way, you have to sell it so you can pay the taxes on "the item"? I'm talking for someone with a very low (single-digits $k) income, if they were to win or be gifted or otherwise come legally to possess some item worth fifty million dollars (say) then they would be compelled to sell it, couldn't keep it despite any sentimental value the gift or winning would have to them, since there would be no way for them to pay the cash tax on the item, due even if they have no intention to ever sell the item or do anything with it but have it? I'm just curious; not asking for legal advice. Thanks. 84.153.209.78 (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In some cases, yes, that is true. The details are very complicated, but some gifts and prizes are taxable. If you don't have the money to pay the tax, you have to sell the gift or prize in order to get money. That doesn't just apply to poor people - most people wouldn't be able to afford the tax on a $50m gift/prize without selling the item. Not all gifts and prizes are taxable, though. I don't know the details (I'm vaguely familiar with the rules in the UK, but I know they are very different - lottery winnings aren't taxable here, for example, but I believe they are in the US). --Tango (talk) 13:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. US income taxes are always owed due to contest winnings, whether cash or other prizes. (Of course, the people running the contest could pay the taxes, but then that would also become a taxable benefit, forcing an odd little compounding problem.) Gifts are a bit more complex, and I believe that gifts below a certain value are exempt from taxes. There are also financial instruments that allow you to give money and property that are tax-free or tax-deferred. These are used for education money, inheritance, etc. Tips to waiters and such are also considered taxable income. StuRat (talk) 13:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is more complicated than that. If you win a US$2000 prize, then when it is time to file your annual income taxes after the year's end, you have to include that $2000 prize when you write out what your income is; so if you earned US$20,000 during the year, then when all is said and done, you'd be reporting US$22,000 of income. However, the poorest people in America pay no income taxes (it is a progressive tax), so for the very poor, it's likely that no taxes would be due despite the additional US$2000 of income. If we're talking about a US$1 million prize, then the person's income is now $1,020,000, and certainly a lot of income tax is going to be due. Off the top of my head, federal income tax on that amount of money is going to be around $280,000 (as a guess). This person is probably going to have to sell the item to raise the $280,000, yes. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Another weird corner case is if the prize is a house. If the very poor person were to win a US$1 million house, then it may be possible for the person to move into that house and then when the tax bill comes, declare bankruptcy. Although in a bankruptcy the bankrupt person generally has to sell any valuable possessions in order to satisfy creditors (the IRS in this case), there are also laws in most places stating that you can't usually lose your house in a bankruptcy. I am not 100% sure this scheme would work, though, because the poor person knows going into the house that he is going to owe the money to the IRS and has no way of getting it; so it might be ruled that he was therefore already scheming to defraud the IRS, and fraud with regard to an asset generally nullifies the benefit that you'd get from bankruptcy, as it pertains to that asset. So, I would tell that very poor person to go ahead and sell that house, pay his taxes, and move into a smaller house. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Realisticly a house is a good thing to win and sell anyway because you could likely sell it for close to it's actual value, whereas with a car or something like that, it'll be difficult Nil Einne (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Realistically, houses and other real estate are generally considered to be rather illiquid investments, difficult to sell at short notice. I suppose it is going to depend on when the taxes are due as to how easy it would be to sell the house to pay the tax. Googlemeister (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If you won a $1m house and owed say $300k in income-tax you could just get a Mortgage for the amount you owe the tax-man (though how you'd keep up repayments i'm not sure). Similarly in terms of gifts there are tax-efficient ways of giving - usually things such as Trusts or a form of insurance (if the gift is to be inherited) that pays the tax bill for the deceased's estate. ny156uk (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, there are rules that govern getting a gift from a family member. So if the poor person's parent gave them a gift/money then the person may not have to pay taxes on it. There's a limit to how much a child can be gifted in this way and I don't know what it is off the top of my head. Getting off the subject a bit, in the case of a parent giving a child a car, the parent will often sell the car for US$1. That way it is being sold and is not technically a gift. If the parent were to gift the car to the child, then the child would possibly owe tax on the blue book value of the car. If it's sold for $1, then the tax is negligible. I reiterate though that this depends on which state you are in. If I were to sell someone a car for $1 in my state of Vermont, the buyer would owe taxes on the value of the car and not how much they paid for it. So if the car is worth $2000, the buyer would have to pay a percentage of that $2000 and not a percentage of $1. Dismas|^(talk) 23:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Usually for those types of sweepstakes they offer you the option of taking the cash equivalent instead of the actual prize, and I think it is pretty common to take the cash. That's especially the case when the prize is something inconvenient to deal with, like your very own herd of elephants. The prize sponsor likes the spectacle and publicity of offering an attention-grabbing prize, but at the end of the day they'd really prefer for you to take the cash, so they can just write you a check instead of dealing with the huge hassle of delivering the actual house or elephants. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 03:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In Canada gifts aren't taxable unless they are a benefit of employment (and even then, employers can make up to two $500 gifts per year tax free). I find, in Canada, the rule that "if the giver can't deduct it for tax purposes, the receiver doesn't have to claim it for tax purposes" to be pretty apt (except for non-profits, government agencies or other non-taxable entities, I suppose). NByz (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(Not legal advice, just information from reference) In the U.S., if a rich person gave a poor person an asset worth $1 million, the tax obligation would be on the rich person or giver, not the poor person or recipient. If the poor person won a mink coat on a game show, or won a lottery, it would be taxable income they would have to pay. There have been cases where someone won a mink on a game show and sold it to pay the taxes. The valuation provided by the game show might be much higher than the amount they could readily sell it for. If a poor person were given a million dollar house, there might not be income tax, but in my town he would get a property tax bill each year for about $16,000. If he did not pay it, he would be evicted and the house would be sold for unpaid taxes. Bankruptcy would not stave off the eviction for unpaid taxes. Edison (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

What Protestant denomination does Obama currently belong to?

After the Reverend Wright Controversy, Obama left Trinity Church which was associated with the Reformed UCC. Currently he attends non-denominational services at Camp David with a Southern Baptist chaplain. So is he still a member of the UCC? I know W-Bush also attended non-denominational service but was still a Methodist. Is it the same with Obama, is he still a Calvinist? Was Rev. Wright a Calvinist? There are major theological differences between the UCC and SBC, does this mean that Obama has changed his religion? Does Obama currently belong to any denomination? --Gary123 (talk) 14:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

First off, it's the United Church of Christ, with no "Reformed", though it was established partly in the Reformed tradition. It's a liberal denomination with little fixed dogma. It's a "congregational" denomination in that each congregation mostly makes its own rules; it's hardly Calvinist.

Obama did repudiate the Trinity congregation. It's not clear whether he also quit the UCC. As far as his current denomination goes, he hasn't made any public statements, so we don't know. PhGustaf (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What city is this?

http://i39.tinypic.com/33bonxj.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.177.231 (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Saint Petersburg; that's the Peter the Great Bridge. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The photo is taken from the Smolny Convent looking SSE over the Smolny Institute and the Neva River. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 16:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Christopher Columbus spoke Arabic?

Did Christopher Columbus speak Arabic when he reach America? I heard this from some Arab Muslim scholar? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.52.211 (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I would strongly doubt it -- but he did apparently take along converted former Jews who spoke Arabic for possible use as translators when he reached China. AnonMoos (talk) 19:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Right - the translator was Luis de Torres. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

He expected to find Arabic speakers in China?! 66.127.52.47 (talk) 18:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not? At some periods of history, Arabs had traded as far as China, there were Muslims in China, and the 15th-century "Cheng Ho" voyages were excursions of Chinese into areas where Arabic was a somewhat prominent trade language. At the very least, it would have been worth a try -- and if he couldn't find in Spain speakers of any languages from areas further east, then he had little choice.... AnonMoos (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

When will things in the U.S. seem to have been improving the most?

The recent employment recovery curves in the U.S. (the 2nd graph in this post) seem more symmetrical than most economic statistics, implying that about a year from now, the slope of the current (red, "2007") curve will be the steepest in a positive direction for this business cycle. Please assume that steepness relates to how much things seem to be improving economically.

So, if this recovery is perfectly symmetrical, will the peak year-over-year change in employment (in red on the first graph) be closer to the 3.5% increase seen in 1994, or the 5.5% peak seen in 1984? 99.25.114.221 (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Are there school and university classes in the USA

the Holy Week? --190.178.160.73 (talk) 22:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes. PhGustaf (talk) 22:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The answer is yes. But if you mean, "Do all schools and universities hold classes during Holy Week?" the answer is no. Wikiant (talk) 22:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Public schools in the US will have classes. They generally only take time off for Christmas and, depending on the area, some of the Jewish or Muslim holidays. But the school districts don't call these breaks "Christmas break" or anything specifically religious. They'll call it a "winter break" or "holiday break" since Hanukkah, Christmas, and Kwanzaa are all reasonably close together. Catholic schools will often take Good Friday off in addition to Christmas. Dismas|^(talk) 23:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Mnay U.S. schools will have either the week before or the week after and Good Friday off. And even some public school will refer to their winter break as Christmas break. Rmhermen (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course, many religious schools cancel classes; my alma mater has no afternoon classes on Holy Wednesday and no classes at all on Holy Thursday, Good Friday, or Easter Monday. Nyttend (talk) 02:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

It is customary for U.S. schools to have a spring break when no classes are held. In many but far from all cases, this coincides with Holy Week. John M Baker (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)