Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 March 6

= March 6 =

Graduation --- commencement or closing exercises?
I am just confused which between the two terms is right. Some schools use "commencement exercises"; some "closing exercises." Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.243.128 (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest that your question would be clearer if it perhaps mentioned WHERE you were talking about. Is it the USA? To me as a non-American it all sounds rather odd. HiLo48 (talk) 06:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, it is here in the Philippines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.243.128 (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I know nothing about Education in the Philippines. But if it is true that "some schools use" one, and some the other, I don't see how either can be wrong. Either they are interchangeable, or you need to use the one appropriate to the school you are discussing. --ColinFine (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * They may be different perspectives of the same event or different features of the same event. "Commencement", of course, refers to beginning something and has been used in English to refer to conferring degrees since the Late Middle Ages (according to my OED). "Commencement exercises" look forward, to the future of the graduating close. In terms of graduation ceremonies, "closing" refers to the ending of a term or semester. In some cases, "commencement exercises" are one part of a larger "closing" event, but often they are, as ColinFine says, interchangeable. For instance, in Booker T. Washington's essay "The World's Work", he uses the terms that way: "Several years ago, in an effort to bring our rhetorical and commencement exercises into a little closer touch with real things, we tried the experiment at Tuskegee of having students write papers.... I believe that Tuskegee was the first institution that attempted to reform its commencement exercises in this particular direction. Ordinarily, at the closing exercises of a high school, graduates are expected to stand up on the platform and, out of all their inexperience, instruct their elders how to succeed in life. We were fortunate at Tuskegee...." I agree that it's best to follow local convention. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the Philippines follow US usage of these terms (a hold over from colonial days)... and in the US the two terms are interchangeable. Which is used all depends on perspective... is the ceremony focused on the the fact that the graduates are ending (closing) their time at the school, or is it focused on them beginning (commencing) their time elsewhere (whether at another school, or in life)?  The reality is that the ceremony usually contains a little of both. Blueboar (talk) 15:05, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced they're equivalent in the States. Mainly I would be surprised to hear the term closing exercises at all.  Generally it's called either commencement or graduation (the exercises part is usually omitted, though you might see it on a formal invitation or something). --Trovatore (talk) 03:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the answers, but does "graduation" not mean "the ending"?

Kim & Lucknow
In Kim, Lucknow is sometimes call Nucklao, especially by Kim and by Indian characters. Why is this? DuncanHill (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Evidently this transposition by locals in the area is not uncommon; per this 1906 source, not only was Lucknow called Nucklao, but "Tulla Gaon" was called "Gaon Tulla" and "Ouchtalony" was called "Lonyochta". The author didn't know why; I'll dig for a minute and see if I can find out. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't found any explanation for the custom, but I have found more confirmation of the custom; evidently Kipling was reflecting local practice, whatever the reason for it. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'd always thought that Kipling must have had a reason for this, and showing off his local knowledge was right up his street. DuncanHill (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have asked on the Language desk to see if anyone knows any more about this phenomenon. DuncanHill (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No closer to identifying the source, but a couple of variants - poking JSTOR tickles up this interesting review of Engaging scoundrels: true tales of Old Lucknow which notes that:
 * ..the various spellings of Indian words and titles, not all of which are updated from nineteenth-century sources, eg Ajeb-ul-Nucklau (p. 106, ie Aja'ib al-nuquala)...
 * and the same title appears in this from 1834, which notes a book as 1 Vol. Ajaeb ool Nuckhloo Kant. This seems to be something along the lines of "The wonders of Nucklau" (cf/ ʿAjā'ib al-makhlūqāt wa gharā'ib al-mawjūdāt); I can't put a date on the book, unfortunately, as it doesn't seem to have ever made it to one of the major libraries. Shimgray | talk | 22:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Anti-Miscegenation Laws in Canada
Did Canada had anti-miscegenation laws in the past? If Canada had such anti-miscegenation laws, when did the laws repeal? Sonic99 (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Canada has never had anti-miscegenation laws: Thompson, Debra (2008) "Nation and Miscegenation: Comparing Anti-Miscegenation Regulations in North America".  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing preventing Habs worshippers from marrying Leafs stalwarts?!! The horror, the horror! Clarityfiend (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Typically, one of them converts. Hence the wedding vow expression, "To Hab and to Hold". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:53, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Harmonise the what now?
"The European Commission is working on a plan to harmonise the corporate-tax base, rather than the tax rate." Source

What is the distinction? What does this mean in practical terms? Thank you. 83.70.254.18 (talk) 23:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * One is "(the base) and the other is the rate of tax. Country A might tax dividends but not interest income, and country B might tax activities at home but not abroad. Setting a standard definition of what is taxable, and what isn't, would allow for easier cross-jurisdiction comparisons. It is a significant step toward a common fiscal policy (albeit, only for corporations, not individuals). DOR (HK) (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey thanks, that's really helpful. Do you know what Ireland taxes, what the norm is in the big EU countries, or what sort of tax base is likely to be introduced if there is harmonisation? 83.70.254.18 (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please don't quote me, but AFAIK the corporate-tax rates of Ireland are substantially lower than France, Germany and perhaps most of the EU (read it). It's simple competition: if a country has lower corporate taxes several corporations will establish themselves, avoiding another country where the taxes are higher. One might say that the first country is simply being clever but there is a real danger that if more countries follow this trend the corporations will get the last laugh. They go to the cheapest country to pay as little as possible while the common taxpayer bears an ever-increasing burden. Flamarande (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is appears to be a race to the bottom leading to headlines like these or this. Tax rates of Europe show some of the different corporation tax rates in each European country, but as Flamarande (and Monbiot, in the seocnd external link) points out, there's also a battle to be fought over what does & does not get taxed. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Guys, I know all about tax rates and the competition relating to them between E.U. countries; it's the tax base, or as DOR (HK) puts it "what or who is taxed" that is the focus of this inquiry. Thanks, 83.70.254.18 (talk) 19:09, 7 March 2011 (UTC)