Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 February 21

= February 21 =

INS
why isnt this covered by ins — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.44.234 (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What ? StuRat (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The question is presumably asking Immigration and Naturalization Service. I am not sure what "this" is referring to. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 03:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "this" is not covered by "ins" because the former has letters "t" and "h" which the latter does not. —SeekingAnswers (reply) 00:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Which Buford and Bedford are referred in the Beale ciphers?
The is a Bedford County, Virginia, but Buford, Virginia is in Pittsylvania County?--Inspector (talk) 03:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Or did he mean Buford's Tavern?--Inspector (talk) 03:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Does Beale Cypher and Treasure Association still exist by now?
There is a brief remark about this association in Simon Singh's The Code Book, but there seemed to be no notable google results other than that from The Code Book. Do anyone ever heard of this association?--Inspector (talk) 5:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

United States and Russian Colonization of Africa
How come the United States and Russia never established large (permanent) African colonies before World War I like some Western European countries did? I'm assuming that the U.S. was uninterested in international affairs before 1898 and by that point it was too late to colonize Africa, plus racists in the United States might not have wanted the U.S. to rule over much more black people. In regards to Russia, I'm thinking that its late industrialization relative to many Western European countries was the reason that it never acquired any (large) permanent African colonies. That said, is there anything that I'm missing and/or that I'm mistaken on? Thank you very much. Futurist110 (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Are you aware that Liberia sort of was an American colony, set up as a means of returning ex-slaves to Africa ? See American Colonization Society.  Check out the flag of Liberia for any similarities with the US flag, and note that their capital, Monrovia, is named after President Monroe.


 * Also, I don't see racism as a reason to avoid having colonies in Africa. On the contrary, those nations that did have colonies there were rather racist, and US racism didn't stop the US from colonizing the Philippines, where the natives were called "our little brown brothers".


 * As for Russia, they weren't much of a naval power then, which would be required to have a colony in Africa, as the land route was blocked by the Ottoman Empire, among others (and they'd be sure to trip up, if they tried to walk over all those foot-stools) . StuRat (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, Liberia (sort of) was an American colony, but the U.S. gave it its independence in the 1840s, almost 70 years before World War I began. In contrast, European nations generally didn't give up their African colonies until at least after WWI and generally after WWII. In regards to the Philippines, they had an important strategic location being close to China and whatnot. Yes, the U.S. was racist against Asians in the 1890s (and beyond) but it also believed in the White Man's Burden of "civilizing" Filipinos. In contrast, the U.S. didn't really make any big effort to educate or "civilize" its own black population after Reconstruction ended. Your point about the Russian Imperial Navy makes a lot of sense, and thinking about it the U.S. itself didn't have a decent Navy until the 1880s, when U.S. President Chester Arthur began modernizing it. Futurist110 (talk) 04:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Answering "why whatever didn't happen" questions are essentially impossible. We're getting into the realm of pure speculation when we do that.  If you want to know what did actually happen, start reading at Scramble for Africa to understand the history of African colonization.  The only reasonable way to answer your question, if there is one, is to simply say that it wasn't in American or Russian interests to get heavily involved in African colonization.  -- Jayron  32  04:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree that it's unanswerable. There must be any number of historic documents discussing the merits and negatives of US and Russian colonialism.  If anyone can dig those up, they would be relevant here. StuRat (talk) 05:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Why go all that way when the Americans could steal/confiscate/conquer land from the Native Americans and the Mexicans or buy from the French or Russians with much less trouble? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Of course, at some point the US had obtained all the land it could in that manner. However, there were still vast areas of the US open to new farming and ranching, so this did somewhat reduce the need to resort to colonies to obtain new land. StuRat (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The US has never been much for traditional colonization. We've been more into buying influence. You might say we would prefer to "rent" another country rather than to "own" it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hawaii? Alansplodge (talk) 00:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, insofar as Manifest destiny looks a lot like colonialism, though of a peculiar American type (i.e. colonialism for annexation rather than the sort of extractive/exploitative colonialism as understood by mercantilist economic theory, which is how most European nations thought of colonialism, even into the 19th century) American was certainly colonialist in that sense. However, you are broadly correct that the U.S. was not generally involved in the kind of colonialism that marked the Scramble for Africa at all.  As I said above, it just didn't fit America's interests to be involved in that type of colonialism.  U.S. "colonies" like the Philipines weren't really American colonies, they were inherited from other European powers as a result of war treaties, and the U.S. had very specific interests (mostly military) in keeping them as territories.  But the U.S. didn't really colonize the way that the Europeans did in Africa in the 19th century.  It just didn't operate that way.  -- Jayron  32  06:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Futurist110 -- during the 1880s-WWI period, Liberia was understood to be under U.S. protection (though not a formal colony), so that a move by any European power to annex Liberia would have been considered hostile towards the U.S. But otherwise, the U.S. was not interested too much in Africa, and certainly not in tying down any military units there. What the United States was interested in was safeguarding trade routes that were important to it, and ensuring that no European power gained new footholds in its "back yard". In pursuit of this policy, the U.S. built the Panama Canal, and acquired various strategically-located islands and bases on islands (Hawaii, the Philippines, Guam, Guantanamo, the Virgin Islands etc.) and exercised a kind of hegemony over central America and the Caribbean area. The U.S. was content to leave Africa to the Europeans, and in return expected Europe to leave central America to the U.S... AnonMoos (talk) 10:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * AnonMoos is explaining the Monroe Doctrine, the driving force behind U.S. Foreign Policy for about 100 years leading up to WWI. The half of the Monroe Doctrine that gets remembered is that the U.S. actively opposed European involvement in the Americas, but there was a flip side to that coin, which was that the U.S. did not itself get actively involved outside of the Americas.  As I said above, it was not in the U.S. interest to be involved in the Scramble because the U.S. considered its interests to be its own backyard rather than Africa.  -- Jayron  32  19:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

As far as Russia is concerned, the usual Russian policy - since at least 15th century - has always been that of expanding into contiguous territories, especially to the south and east. So the 19th century was spent in wars with, or "peaceful" expansion at the expense of, the Ottoman Empire, Persia, Caucasian princelings, Central Asian states, and the Qing Empire. After the Crimean War, Russia's only major overseas possession - the Russian America - was viewed as indefensible, so it was sold (for U.S. $7,200,000), even as the Russian Empire continued to expand in Northeast Asia, in Central Asia, and in the Caucasus. Russian rulers usually sensibly preferred to play the Great Game with the British in the inner Eurasian regions where it may have had the advantage of overland access, rather than go for overseas adventures. (The few exceptions, more or less, prove the rule. E.g. an abortive attempt to establish Russian presence in Hawai'i in the early 1800s was abandoned  due to obvious inability to project power at a competitive level with the British). AFAIK, the only serious Russian involvement in the the 19th Africa was Nikolay Leontiev's mission to Ethiopia; however it probably should be viewed not as an overture for outright colonization, but as an attempt to cultivate the Ethiopians (who are Oriental Orthodox) as potential allies. -- Vmenkov (talk) 22:43, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Chris Christie Being Popular in NJ
Why is New Jersey Governor Chris Christie so popular in New Jersey? Futurist110 (talk) 03:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Because in order to run for office, he needs to win the popular vote? Chris Christie is a politician. Politicians are usually charismatic folks to charm their audience. Whether it's a smooth talk or an intelligent planning, politicians are usually striving for popularity. How many politicians do you know who reject popularity? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 04:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, but Chris Christie is a Republican in a liberal, Democratic state. For a Governor to run a state which is not that favorable to his party and remain popular is quite an achievement. Most politicians try to remain popular, but keep in mind that a lot of times politicians lose popularity due to things and events outside of their control, such as the economy, et cetera. Futurist110 (talk) 04:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * First, he's not a smooth-talking politician at all. He "tells it straight", which is how Jerseyites like it.  And, while nominally a Republican, he's really a moderate.  Just look at his actions after Hurricane Sandy, where he praised Obama and blamed Republicans for holding up the aid bill.  Those are not the actions of a Republican loyalist.  And being fat makes him seem like a real person, and being able to laugh about it on Letterman helps, too.  (Hopefully we can get our resident Jerseyite, Medeis, to comment before she closes this down for whatever reason she comes up with this time.)StuRat (talk) 04:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * There are liberal, moderate, and conservative Republicans and Democrats. To conflate liberalism to the Democratic party or conservatism to the Republican party is an error, because there are liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats. Funny, I never knew Medeis was female. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Chris Christie is a notably liberal Republican in a liberal state. Don't believe the oversimplified view of "Republican = conservative" and "Democratic = liberal" along some universal scale at a national level.  All politics is local, and that includes the "liberal-conservative" continuum.  Lots of traditional "leftist" places have had Republican politicians, including governors of Massachusetts (Mitt Romney and Bill Weld), Rudy Giuliani as mayor of New York City, Arnold Schwarzenegger in California, etc. likewise there have been many Democratic politicians to be office holders in heavily "conservative" areas (Ann Richards in Texas, Bill Clinton in Arkansas, Brian Schweitzer in Montana, etc.)  The thing about local party politics is that, generally, Republicans tend to be on the conservative side, and Democrats on the liberal side, of the local political continuum.  Chris Christie would be "left" of many southern Blue Dog Democrats, for example.  This can create a problem at the national level, you can see the sort of corners presidential candidates like Romney and Giuliani get painted into where their local policies run afoul of the national party platform.  Romney's Massachusetts health care reform served as a model for what Republican's dubbed "Obamacare", while Giuliani' socially liberal stances on issues such as gay marriage (he pushed through marriage equality ordinances in NYC in 1998) and abortion (he's vocally pro-choice) put him at odds with the national platform of the Republican party.  However, on the local scale (Romney in Massachusetts and Guiliani in New York) the two generally fall to the right of most of the Democratic Party members in their states.  To the original question: attempting to understand Christie's appeal in New Jersey by looking at the National Republican Party platform, and ignoring the local political spectrum in New Jersey, doesn't work.  -- Jayron  32  04:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, StuRat's and Jayron's answers make a lot of sense. What other progressive things did Christie do besides criticizing the national GOP for certain things and hugging Obama after Hurricane Sandy? Also, off-topic, but is Medeis really a woman? This is the first time that I've heard of this. Futurist110 (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, she is. Back to Christie: This site collates his positions on many issues, and This article covers some of his more liberal positions.  His positions seem somewhat nuanced.  If we're going just on the bullet points, he is currently pro-life on abortion (though in his early political career was pro-choice); he's vetoed a marriage equality bill, but has also supported broad civil rights protections for other sexual identity issues.  He's fairly pro-enviornment, opposing offshore drilling and supporting "green energy" initiatives, and supporting pollution controls to combat climate change.  He's opposed some initiatives that grant broad amnesty to illegal immigrants, but also supports easing immigration restrictions and providing easier paths to citizenship and immigration in general.  He's for gun control (unlike many Republicans) and he's also largely in line with President Obama's education policies.  So, as I said above, he's more conservative than New Jersey Democrats (which is where you'd expect a New Jersey Republican to be) but on many key issues, he's not in line with the national Republican Party line, being considerably more liberal on several key Republican platform planks.  -- Jayron  32  05:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * From our article: "On January 23, 2012, Christie filed the first nomination to the New Jersey Supreme Court of an openly gay man, Bruce Harris, and an Asian American, Phillip Kwon." Of course, he has also done some rather conservative things, like making deep spending cuts in social programs.  However, NJ is in such debt that the citizens may go along with this.


 * And I don't know if Medeis is female, so I should have used a gender-neutral pronoun, sorry. StuRat (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We established in an epic discussion two years ago that he is male. Nil Einne (talk) 06:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A woman! On the Internet! Preposterous. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I assume everyone online is female, unless specifically told otherwise. Most places I go online, this is actually true; it shortcircuits some of the "keeping our heads down" behaviour that makes women look rare online; it leads to much more interesting and useful reactions when you misgender someone. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A male who refers to himself as a waitress, no less; or a waitrice, no lice. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  10:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Do you not see the irony of discussing the sex of someone who calls himself "nobody"? Not to mention its inappropriateness on the Reference Desk?  I claim to be a 32-year-old Mayan woman with 12 fingers.  Prove me wrong.  --140.180.243.51 (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha, you must be a cousin to Antonio Alfonseca. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's less uncommon than you might think for blue states to have Republican governors, and vis versa. That said, often the governors in those states tend to be more moderate, or "in name only." Shadowjams (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, Christie is more than Republican in name only. His economic policies, for example, are right smack dab in the middle of Republican ideology.  As I note above, however, his social stances are more nuanced.  -- Jayron  32  06:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the 8 year stretch of dems and the credit crunch played into the "time for some new blood/ anything but the incumbent party" attitude as well.165.212.189.187 (talk) 13:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Russia legal tender
Are bills like this still legal tender in Russia? Since they're selling for half the exchange rate, someone (me) could buy them and trade them in for thirty american dollars. 70.162.199.202 (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If they were, don't you think the seller would do that ? StuRat (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is legal, but it's not worth what you think. The entire Russian currency was re-denominated in 1997, making your ebay bill worth 3 cents at face value. Presumably people are selling these old bills as collectors items. (See Russian_ruble. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * They are charging $14 with shipping, for a bill worth 3 cents. Unless it's rare (which seems unlikely for a bill only 18 years old), that seems like quite a rip-off. StuRat (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Perhaps they're counting on getting rich from people who doesn't know about the redenomination?Dncsky (talk) 06:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The remunerator's on top, the redenominator's on the bottom. --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  10:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC) :)


 * Those bills are worth only 3 cents more than the Razzbucknik. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I would be very surprised if it still circulates in Russia. It's a 1000 RUR (pre-1998)"sixth rouble" note. On 1.1.1998 the seventh rouble was introduced, at 1 RUB = 1000 RUR, so your note is worth 1 RUB, or about three US cents; the smallest note currently being printed is 10 RUB. As usual, we have an article about it. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, we do. I thought the re-denomination took place in '94, where currency changed from the flag variant (one with the tricolor) to its present state. Well, looks like I was wrong. Ebaying is a very nice way to pass a wikibreak, might I say. 70.162.199.202 (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Any obligation to correct a commercial misunderstanding?
If a customer offers to pay much more they need to because they didn't understand what constitutes the subset they want from an itemized quote, is there any obligation for the seller to correct them? I'm not asking legal advice because I am not a party to this situation, but I've just learned about it third-hand, and the person I learned about it from (who is also not a party to the transaction) and I disagree about the answer. 71.215.94.144 (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Ethically, the seller should make it clear to the customer that they may be paying too much. The legality of it depends on the country(ies) where the transaction is taking place. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In the US, at least, anything legal (or even illegal but unenforced) seems to be considered ethical, by businesses, these days. StuRat (talk) 05:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * (I'm not a lawyer, but my work requires that I know something about contract law and I have studied it at university level, though in Sweden.) Your IP geolocates to Denver, Colorado so I guess that is the jurisdiction that you're asking about. The answer will of course vary between jurisdictions but in cases like this the defafult answer is "it depends".
 * "Legal" can be understood in different ways. One question is "is it criminal for the buyer to accept the offered money" and another is "is it a binding contract if they go through with the sale". The OP's question seems to be closer to the second meaning. If that's correct the articles Contract and United States contract law will give you some insight. As I see it, the buyer would be considered to have made a counteroffer which the seller can accept or reject. Normally, that would lead to a binding contract. However, there are a whole lot of different ways a contract can be invalid, and the articles list them (not having studied US law I'm not sure if the list is complete). If a case like this is taken to court the court will consider all the circumstances in the case, and the outcome will depend on that and on the arguments made before the court. That's why I wrote that it depends. Sjö (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It depends on a lot of things, like the setting (are these consumers or businesses?), the exact items in question, whether there was a written agreement and what it said, and other matters like that. Broadly, my view of the law (others may disagree) is that if it came to a lawsuit, the purchaser would lose, more likely than not. That being said, there's a fair number of exceptions to that, especially as regards consumers, and there are likely to be variations based on what state you are in and what your legislature and courts have done.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Dependds, equity will probably have something to say about it if there is any circumstance that suggests less than fullly honest dealing. And as Wehwalt mentions, most jurisdictions have consumer protection laws. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Constitutional right to bear arms
Guatemala, Haiti, Mexico, Pakistan, and USA have a right to bear arms clause in their constitution. Are there any other countries with this clause in their constitution? Right to keep and bear arms was no help because it's missing two of the above-mentioned countries. Dncsky (talk) 05:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It is of course a spelling mistake. It should be "bare arms"! But seriously, English common law (used in a number of countries) allows the right to bare arms. Note that assult or killing will attract an assault, manslaughter or murder charge. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Specifically which ones? If there are any common-law countries with the right to bear arms clause in the constitution that's not listed above then please feel free to point it out.Dncsky (talk) 05:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Isn't that rather the point of common law, that it doesn't need to be written down, it's just understood from tradition and precedent ? Of course, I realize that you specifically asked about the constitutions, but Alex assumed you'd also be interested in nations which have a right to bear arms despite it not being in their constitutions.  There could also be the reverse case, where the right is in the Constitution, but the nation ignores that entirely.  For example, the Constitution of the Soviet Union was very generous with giving citizens rights, but their government completely ignored it and did as they pleased.  StuRat (talk) 06:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Far as I know (it's been a long time since Law 101), common law is written down. It's called "case law", and those books aid legal eagles in finding precedents to fall back on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It can be, but doesn't need to be, unlike statute law. For example, if a law was passed saying people could no longer hunt foxes, a common law argument could be that "people have been allowed to hunt foxes for hundreds of years, so it's an established common law that we can".  Of course, having previous case law on their side would strengthen the argument. StuRat (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "Common law" is a basic descriptor of a legal system. Most British progeny are "common law" legal systems. Used in that sense is different, but related, to the used in the sense of judge made law, or as in general common law. The British have been writing down statutes since at least the 16th century. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
 * Just being picky, but English law was codified by the Statute of Westminster 1275. Any legal rights which predated 6 July 1189 (the accession of the previous monarch, Richard I) were described as being "since time immemorial". In 1832, the principle was amended to "rights which had been enjoyed for twenty years (or as against the Crown thirty years) should not be impeached merely by proving that they had not been enjoyed before", unless there is a relevant statute of course. Alansplodge (talk) 15:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The first English codification I could find was in the 880s, during King Alfred's reign. (Richard wasn't the predecessor to Edward I). The Statute of Wesminster did not end common law in England. Shadowjams (talk) 22:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't say that. My (admittedly rather shaky) understanding is that if you had exercised a right "from time immemorial" then it was a "custom" established in common law. But we digress. Alansplodge (talk) 02:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And yes, the Soviet constitution's a good example of a written Constitution almost completely ignored. I assume that's what the other examples do too. The U.S. occasionally ignores the language of its own constitution; interpreting legal documents is often reliant on other factors (not saying that's always correct either). Shadowjams (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The US Constitution is rather vague on the right to bear arms. It can be interpreted as only giving that right to those who are in well-regulated state militias.  Also, it may prevent federal laws from taking this right away, but whether state laws can is another question. StuRat (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll steer clear of your first point to avoid any debates on the RD. Your second point can be answered by McDonald v. Chicago.Dncsky (talk) 06:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Excellent advice. Best not to open any unnecessary cans of worms. Shadowjams (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm only interested in the constitutional clauses. I have no interest whatsoever in other gun laws and whether they are enforced or not.Dncsky (talk) 06:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. StuRat (talk) 06:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, modern interpretations aside, the US constitutional provision about bearing arms is explicitly linked to the maintenance of a militia, and the Constitution of China (the Communist one) requires citizens to join the militia in accordance with law, which, at least textually, amounts to something similar: join the militia (and bear arms), except that this is a duty, not a right. You won't see much of this in cities these days, but in villages this constitutional provision is very much alive and able bodied men are organised into local militias with more or less regular training, and might be mustered to, say, lock down a dissident under house arrest in the village. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The founders were perfectly capable of saying the right to bear arms in a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed, if that's what they had meant. They didn't say that.  The "militia" bit is a subordinate clause explaining the independent clause, not limiting it. --Trovatore (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'd be careful in putting too much emphasis on placement of commas, etc., as those practices have changed over time, and the founding fathers weren't particularly careful about grammar, in any case. This explains why we have such gems as "...in order to form a more perfect union" (it's either perfect or not, it's not "more perfect").  And there really wasn't any need to explain the reasoning behind the Amendment.  How many other Amendments in the Bill of Rights have their motivations explained ? StuRat (talk) 16:06, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hanging of black americans in flippin arkansas
I would like to know if their were any hangings of black Americans in Flippin Arkansas between the years 1870 and 1870 ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.122.136 (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you check your years for accuracy? And for the reference of others, that is not an insult against the fair state of Clintonland but he's talking about Flippin, Arkansas.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (ec)Flippin, Arkansas is the town. Do you mean in 1870? Or have you made a typo: between 1860 and 1870, or between 1870 and 1880? In 2000, the population was 1,357 people, of whom 0.44% were Black or African American, i.e. 6 people. According to History of Arkansas, following the 1868 election, "the KKK began whitecapping throughout Arkansas". According to Marion County, Arkansas, the population of the whole county was much lower in 1870. This is just general background in case it helps. I expect someone will come along shortly who knows how to research this kind of local history. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It may have been few, if any. Northwest Arkansas is listed as pro-Union with few lynchings in this source. Rmhermen (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So, fewer than seven, and perhaps approaching a number multiplied by zero? Is there a context for this question, besides a barstool? μηδείς (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Try this with a magnifying glass or go to its source.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/01/08/lynching_map_tuskegee_institute_s_data_on_lynching_from_1900_1931.html alteripse (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

How is political science independent from law according to some political scientists?
Often, political science is attributed to law. I think everyone agrees that there is a relationship between the two, but there is also a lot of differences between them. How exactly is political science different and independent from law according to some leading political scientists? I asked this because political science appears to be somewhat dependent and inferior to law whenever we discuss their relationship. This treats political science only as an introductory class for law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.205.29.248 (talk) 14:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Here is an analogous question: How is cooking independent from nutrition according to some chefs?  If you think about that question, it might give you some insight into your question. Looie496 (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In a democracy [or most governments for that matter] politics create the law. Looie's answer's excellent too. Shadowjams (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You asked a related question before. Political science is usually descriptive, whereas law and political philosophy are usually prescriptive.  That ties in with Looie's response. μηδείς (talk)

Working as an expat in China...or not?
A China-based division of an international company wants me to work for them. I am currently in the U.S. I do not need to be on site, so I could remain in the U.S. and work out of my apartment. However, I am trying to determine which is the most economically advantageous choice. I am confounded by which suggests that it may be reasonably expected to ask for my current U.S. salary to be paid to my U.S. bank and taxed by the U.S. only, while earning an additional ~20,000 RMB (USD $3,000) foreign living allowance of which China would tax 20% and the U.S. would tax 28% (in that order, I presume, resulting in a 42% actual tax on that allowance.) If this is indeed common practice for Western engineers accepting positions in China, it would certainly be advantageous to move there. But does that actually reflect reality? Neo Poz (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We are unable to give legal advice, and if you are thinking about claiming a foreign living allowance without actually living in a foreign country, you probably need legal advice. Looie496 (talk) 19:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * At the very least, call your local IRS office. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You should speak to a tax advisor - it depends on the tax laws of each country and most importantly any double taxing treaty between them. Chinese tax law especially is a very complex area that few other than tax accountants and tax lawyers understand properly, and you should not trust some random guy on Wikipedia, still less Yahoo. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 19:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * My question wasn't about the tax laws, and I certainly wasn't thinking about claiming a foreign living allowance without actually living in a foreign country. I only want to know if foreign living allowances in addition to base salary are typical, i.e., more common than deducting the allowance from the base salary. But I certainly will discuss this with colleagues who are familiar through personal experience with the tax laws, and probably a tax preparer too. Neo Poz (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Though so long as your company doesn't report your "U.S." income to China, how would the Chinese tax authorities know about it? That would be a question for your company's payroll department (what they report to whom).  I can say that for professionals employed overseas by a company in their home country, it is fairly standard to ask for additional pay to cover the cost of maintaining two residences and travel back and forth.  Also, I am assuming that the $3,000 (20,000 RMB) that you mention would be monthly, not yearly.  If it is yearly, then it is trifling and will not come close to covering your expenses in China.  The cost of living in China is lower than the United States for a comparable living standard, but not that much lower.  Maybe on the order of 70% of U.S. costs aside from housing.  Housing varies widely within China.  In Shanghai, Shenzhen, and Beijing, rental housing is comparable in cost per square meter to average U.S. cities. (Housing for purchase is comparable to San Francisco or New York.) Farther inland, it's less expensive. Aside from financial considerations, though, there is another factor that might be decisive.  Have you spent much time in China?  The air pollution there is difficult for an American to imagine. It makes the air Los Angeles on a bad day look like a pristine mountain vista. The smog can be so thick that it is difficult to see more than one block away.  It can give you headaches and shortness of breath and irritate your throat and eyes. It isn't like that every day, but it is like that fairly regularly, sometimes for a week or more on end.  People with no history of asthma or respiratory disease have developed it while living in China. Then there are serious concerns about food safety, and the impotable tap water. For me, the health risks alone would rule out a long-term stay in China, almost no matter how much money was involved. Marco polo (talk) 20:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you; the "fairly standard" part is what I wanted to know. The additional information is very helpful and suggests further research too. Neo Poz (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Uh oh! Thank you for making me look at air quality. Neo Poz (talk) 21:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Those PM2.5 readings in the mid-100s are fairly routine. They are kind of bearable short-term, but I wouldn't want to live in those conditions.  However, it isn't so unusual for the readings to rise into the "very unhealthy" range over 200, where even short-term exposure is harmful. See these numbers from last month.  Marco polo (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * "For me, the health risks alone would rule out a long-term stay in China, almost no matter how much money was involved." And this is Marco Polo we're talking about! All joking aside, Marco did hit on some points that would be my first response to your question, specifically that I think there are much larger factors that I'd put before the (relatively) small financial variances between the two options.   Moving from the U.S. to China would very likely involve a significant amount of culture shock and, in your case as Marco has noted, a significant change in lifestyle and quality of living.   Now, for some people that can be a selling point, of course -- the idea of new vistas and immersion in a new culture -- and this aspect can offset the headaches and comparable lack of comfort and security, but seeing as you're apparently an engineer and a good deal of your time is going to be spent on in the work you're doing regardless (as opposed to say some twenty-something over there to teach English and travel the countryside, or some such) and you've emphasized practical economic concerns,  I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you'd probably be second-guessing your decision not long into your stay if you opted for the move.   I apologize that this response does not bare much on the specific income taxation question you raised, but I've known a number of people who have worked in China, and the above is what I've taken away from their impressions on the pros and cons; hopefully it is valuable input and doesn't come off as just me chiding you for focusing on the financial. ;) Snow (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. This is all very good advice. I'm arranging a ~1 month trial period after which I will decide the long-term situation. And again, I have no tax questions; I only mentioned the taxes because of their impact on the total pay and total expenses resulting from the two choices. Neo Poz (talk) 02:39, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh, my mistake; I meant to say overall financial cost-benefit comparison. Snow (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I have to assume that you will have more income – or equivalent – in China than Rmb20,000a month. That won’t cover typical expat housing, meals, entertainment, transport etc. So, there should be something else such as housing provided by your employer (or a housing allowance). That is also taxable. Further, note that China tax law can apply to your entire income, including overseas. While this is not typically the case, it is the law and you’ll want to have the advice of a good accountant.

Other than that, go for it. Living abroad, especially a place like China, will change your world view and provide stories that you’ll be telling for the rest of your life. It is also likely to look very good on your resume. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Really, I shouldn't have been so negative. While it wouldn't be my choice, obviously lots of reasonable people decide breathing the foul air is counterbalanced by other advantages. To prepare for your trip, you might want to have a look at these videos.  I don't fully endorse the videographer's point of view, but it is one person's perspective.  Marco polo (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, if it helps to illustrate, the last time I worked in China I was getting paid my UK wage in the UK as normal and only paying UK tax on it, and receiving a "living allowance" of RMB 3,500 a month (after tax), which I found enough for daily commuting and food and groceries (this was in one of the most expensive cities in China), but I had to dig into my wages for travelling to other parts of China. Accommodation was provided though, so I didn't have to pay rent.

My caveat is again about tax laws. I was there for half a year, I was told the tax arrangements are different if you are there for longer. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 11:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)