Humanities desk
< July 5	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 7 >

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.

July 6

Is there any difference between Whitehall and Westminster when they are used as metonyms?

When referring to the UK government, is there any difference between the metonyms Whitehall and Westminster? A8875 (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Whitehall tend to suggest government ministries and permanent bureaucracy, while Westminster would suggest more the parliamentary side of things? -- AnonMoos (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article which makes the distinction: "...there is currently a standoff between Whitehall and Westminster over accountability..." - Westminster is used to refer to the government, Whitehall is the Civil Service. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 05:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, the both of you. In the recent Libor scandal "senior Whitehall figures" were implicated, and yet I see a lot of news outlets blaming the British Government. Hence my confusion.A8875 (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A difficult thing to be precise about, as (assuming that Paul Tucker did indeed say what he was reported as saying) Diamond was trying to guess at what he might have meant. In his evidence to the Treasury Select Committee, Diamond said first (Q37) that he thought Whitehall meant "officials in the Government", and then (Q82) that he thought it meant "Ministers in Whitehall". Then in the next question he denied that he had written that Ministers were asking him to fiddle his LIBOR submissions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do think there is a real dilemma here, in that while it has been government policy to regard policy as the responsibility of Ministers, and administration as the responsibility of officials, questions of administrative policy can cause confusion between the administration of policy and the policy of administration, especially when responsibility for the administration of the policy of administration conflicts or overlaps with responsibility for the policy of the administration of policy. :) -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC) [reply]

request for submission of a seperate article on `Krishna`

I have read the beautiful article on Krishna in which I feel an attempt has been made to make Krishna as ancient as possible.But I feel that I can write an independent article on krishna giving his full name( His historical name)Place and date of birth and a rational explanation of his Leelas/miracles,the part played by him in the Mahabharata wars and his tragic exile from the scene after accomplishiing what he was directed to do.This material is based on the internationally famous book ` Krishna` written by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swamy Prabhupada,Founder Acharya of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness and also from Srimad Bhagawat and the Mahabharata on which the original article is based. according to me Krishna was 12 years old when Alexander the Great invaded India. He was called as `KalaYavana`( The Greek Prince born to a Naga Queen) a number of times in both the Bhagavat and the Mahabharata.In this connection I would like to say that I am 72 Years old and I am not efficient in the use of the laptop. If given proper guidance I feel that I can contribute to the enrichment of a number of Articles in Wikipedia.Bksatyanarayana (talk) 07:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)Bksatyanarayana.[reply]

Books published by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness are unlikely to be given a high degree of WP:WEIGHT in determining the topic, structure and scope of an article on Krishna. This is because wikipedia articles have an obligation to reflect the totality of highest quality literature on a topic. You may wish to consider investigating Krishna in International Society for Krishna Consciousness, but you'd need to have articles and books which are not immediately connected with the ISKC opinion regarding Krishna. In particular, you would need to demonstrate that the ISKC opinion regarding Krishna is notable—ie, has been widely mentioned specifically regarding Krishna in ISKC in sources not connected to me ISKC. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that there are great difficulties in chronology in India for almost anything before the Maurya empire (and for many things after the Mauryas)? What would a date of birth for Krishna even mean in a valid historical sense, when there is significant legitimate uncertainty about which century Buddha lived in, etc...? -- AnonMoos (talk)`

Sorry to butt in, but may I plead with Bksatyanarayana to visit and read the page User talk:Bksatyanarayana. There are multiple editors trying to get across the point that fringe theories unsupported by reliable sources can't be added to the encyclopedia, but we're not getting any responses there, and another block from editing is quite likely if we can't get through on this point. Wareh (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Was George F. Kennan an agent of Germany?

just an intuition--his writings on ww1 concerning germany were supportive, and the policies he promoted helped Germany after ww2 a lot. Weak evidence indeed, so I'm just asking if that speculation has ever been heard of by anyone who reads this. Thanks--Rich Peterson76.218.104.120 (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, he was an agent of the United States, whose interests involved supporting Germany after WWII as a counterpoise to Russia. He knew quite a lot about Germany, having been stationed there just prior to WWII in their embassy, and was not at all anti-German, but I've never heard anyone suggest he was working for them covertly. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which country does not include tax in the advertised price?

The subject of whether the advertised price includes tax or not came up in the reference desk [1] recently. Which country does not include tax in the advertised price? The ones I'm aware of are USA and Canada. Historically Japan was also in this category until 2004.A8875 (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat more complicated than that in the US. First, there is no national sales tax, so each state sets its own rules. Also, in public events such as sports, the sales tax is built into the price. I don't know why, but I always assumed it was to speed the process along. In general, though, we want to know how much we're being taxed. Why Australians or anyone else would rather not know, I find mystifying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not just every state but some counties, cities, downtown/entertainment district, etc. Dining in downtown Chicago, you get a downtown tax, a city tax, a county tax and a state sales tax.[2] Rmhermen (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a question of not wanting to know how much tax we're paying. Our standard GST rate is 10%. It gets complicated and doesn't always work out to be exactly that, but 10% is always a good guide. The GST replaced a couple of dozen other sales taxes etc etc, so for most people, the GST is the only non-income tax they ever pay. They know the ball-park rate, so there's simply no need to have it shoved down our throats every time we go shopping. It's certainly separated out on the sales dockets for those who want to know exactly how much of their total purchase went straight to the Tax Office and how much the vendor kept. So, we get told anyway. But there's never the option of not paying it, and it's not like we have to submit tax returns proving we paid the right amount of GST throughout the year, so in a way it really doesn't matter how much it is, it's gone anyway. The only real choice is between buying and not buying a particular good, and we always have that choice, at the margin. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia they made it illegal (a hefty fine applies) to show a price that doesn't already include the GST. That way, the price shown on the item is what you actually pay. There were lots of arguments pro and con the GST, but once it became set in stone, nobody could argue with this aspect of the law. None of this having to mentally work out what the advertised price really means to your hip pocket. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 23:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in th UK it is the retailer's choice whether to show prices net or inclusive of VAT. But the only sellers I know of that show net prices are builders merchants. Even then Wickes prices are inclusive, Travis Perkins net, same company, different clientele. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All retail prices in the UK include VAT (no retailer's choice, Judith). Only "business to business" (wholesale) prices are shown without VAT (though in some cases they allow purchases by individuals). Dbfirs 07:16, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the law? I thought it was just common practice. Itsmejudith (talk) 07:53, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's against the Advertising Standards Authority code to advertise prices excluding VAT unless no customers pay VAT, or they can all reclaim it[3][4] (because you could be seen to be trying to pretend your prices are lower than they are). I don't think it's against the law, however. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In South Africa the situation is similar to Australia. By law the price you see is the price you pay. The invoice does specify it separately but the pricetag itself and prices mentioned in advertising must be inclusive of VAT. At 14% calculating it is a strain on most people's mental arithmetic abilities when sitting quietly, nevermind while herding a child or three through supermarket aisles.

In Thailand, VAT is usually included in the advertised price, but I have noticed that it is not included in the menus of restaurants of newer, upscale malls, such as Terminal 21 and Siam Paragon. In addition to the advertised price, one has to add VAT (7%) and service charge (10%), so in the end you pay almost 20% more than what you thought it'd cost. However, this seems to be a new phenomenon limited to these fancy malls. I am not sure how this is in the supermarkets and/or shops, but I'd guess that they wouldn't add VAT to the bill, as Thai consumers aren't used to this practice. The closest I've seen elsewhere is the MBK Center's new international food court, that (OR:) is rather fancy compared to where it's located, includes VAT as part of the price, but adds a 14% (or so) service charge to the final bill. V85 (talk) 13:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nose flick

There's a famous nose touch/flick seen in The Sting (if you've seen it you know exactly what I mean) I recently saw the first season of Deadwood which is set in the 1870s and saw several people using as well, with the same meaning of "The con is on" or thereabouts. I'm unable to find much information on the history of this trope/device--I had no idea it was so old (assuming the creators of Deadwood aren't being anachronistic) any sources indicate just how old it is and whence it arose?68.160.29.196 (talk) 22:57, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same is mentioned in List of gestures down to attributing its popularity to The Sting--of which I am dubious. I am American and first saw it on British TV, probably Monty Python and definitely Dr. Who. μηδείς (talk) 23:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I can't see it there. What is it called? Alansplodge (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the "nose" alphabetical position under List of gestures#Gestures made with other body parts. There's a relevant TV Tropes page, but like other online discussions I've seen, it displays some confusion with the "You're right" or "Spot on" gesture used when playing charades, which is a completely different gesture (pointing at the tip of the nose). The statement by Colon in Pratchett's Jingo, quoted there, expresses what has always been my understanding of the gesture. The bit about "laying a finger aside of his nose and giving a nod" in "A Visit from St. Nicholas" also seems to convey that sort of meaning. Deor (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I see it now. Yes, it's well known in the UK and I remember it in the 1960s. It's probably an awful lot older. It also occurs in France where it means that you are clever or that you realize the truth faster than anyone else which is not much different. Alansplodge (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this related (from the 1820s): "He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work, And fill'd all the stockings; then turn'd with a jerk, And laying his finger aside of his nose And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose." Rmhermen (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Deor already mentioned this quote. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always assumed it indicated "eye, nose" = "I knows".--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although that wouldn't make sense in French. According to the Desmond Morris link above, it's a pan-European thing. Alansplodge (talk) 07:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]