Humanities desk
< November 15	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 17 >

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.

November 16

Who is an "officer" of a corporation? Is there a formal definition?

Who is an "officer" of a corporation, as opposed to merely an employee? Is there a formal definition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.49.16.216 (talk) 06:31, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It depends a bit on which context you're asking the question in. Many public corporations traded in the U.S. are incorporated in Delaware, so Delaware corporate law applies to that designation. There's also a definition of officer that applies for the SEC and most federal laws (I hopefully assume most of these laws coincide...). There are very specific definitions of what an "officer" is depending on the context, so I won't even attempt to specify what that is. In other countries than the U.S. you may find very different answers. The definition that may be more relevant to what you're actually interested in is the definition between an "exempt" and a "non-exempt" employee, which have very different treatment under U.S. labor laws. It's the legal codification of the distinction between blue and whitecollar jobs. Shadowjams (talk) 06:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant Delaware code is DEL CODE § 3303(14). Shadowjams (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference, but it seems that that part of the Delaware Code only creates a technical definition of what an officer is for the purpose of the code, and the definition presupposes some informal understanding of "corporation functions usually performed by an officer of a corporation".

In my understanding, the CEO, CFO, and secretary of a corporation are undoubtedly officers because there are duties/functions required by law to be performed by holders of these offices. What is not clear to me is how to decide whether an employee with other some other title would be considered an officer based on what his/her role and job function. --173.49.16.216 (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may also be interested in our article Articles of Incorporation and the other links found there such as Corporate law in the United States--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 07:22, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally, the officers of a corporation were its president, treasurer, and secretary, and optionally one or more vice presidents, assistant treasurers, and assistant secretaries. Contemporary corporation statutes tend to define the term in a somewhat circular manner, as a person designated as an officer by the corporation. There are various statutory and regulatory definitions, which vary according to the statutory or regulatory purpose. For example, Rule 3b-2 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which defines the term for purposes of some filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, defines "officer" as "a president, vice president, secretary, treasury or principal financial officer, comptroller or principal accounting officer, and any person routinely performing corresponding functions with respect to any organization whether incorporated or unincorporated." John M Baker (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth and the United States

Has the United States ever been invited to join the Commonwealth of Nations. It did used to be a part of the British Empire, after all. If it did join, I think the Commonwealth would be much better able to ignite change in some of the more impoverished and war-torn member states --82.46.142.98 (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, the answer is no. One thing to remember is that the Commonwealth is not just a political entity. It is (or at least once was) also an economic bloc. It was intentionally set up to be (in part) a rival to the US.

At the time that the Commonwealth was formed, England was concerned about the growing dominance of the US Dollar in would trade, and the impact that growing dominance would have on the Pound Sterling. The trade preferences that went along with membership in the Commonwealth were intended to off-set the Dollar's dominance and helped keep the Pound a viable alternative. That may not be as true today as it was back in the day... but it is one reason why the US was (intentionally) excluded.

Also, more realistically, I think the Commonwealth Nations know that if they asked the US to join, the US would not accept the invitation. The US has no reason to do so... there is no benefit for US. Blueboar (talk) 15:41, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having the queen as the theoretical ruler of the US would be unconstitutional. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Commonwealth Nations have the Queen as head of state, so this doesn't matter: of the 52 member nations, only 16 have her as the head. In fact, one country was never part of the empire at all (Mozambique). Mingmingla (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Rwanda join recently and that was never an Empire nation? --TammyMoet (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; although Mozambique was the first nation to join that hadn't been part of the Empire. Alansplodge (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are some benefits, since many Commonwealth countries grant to other Commonwealth citizens additional rights: the right to vote in local elections, to travel visa-free, to hold public office, etc. See Commonwealth citizen. There's also no drawback to being in the Commonwealth. From our article: "Member states have no legal obligation one to another. Instead, they are united by language, history, culture, and their shared values of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law." It's nothing like the European Union, which has significant economic and political power over its members, or even the UN, where Security Council resolutions are considered by most countries to be binding. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'd never sell it to Americans. It runs directly contrary to our national-origin myth (I'm using "myth" in the non-disparaging sense here). We were born in the fire that purged off the yoke of the British oppressor, and we're not going to put it back on again, special relationship or no. --Trovatore (talk) 19:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that most countries in the Commonwealth were colonized far more brutally and far more recently than the Thirteen Colonies. The soon-to-be-American colonies were composed of white settlers with close cultural and economic ties with Britain, which was definitely not true for India or South Africa. --Bowlhover (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but neither of those fought a war to establish their independence. --Trovatore (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Well, not a successful one, anyway.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See U.S. and Great Britain: The Special Relationship in the World Wars.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's killing me that I can't find a source, but the notion of a coordinated foreign policy and a customs union between the US and UK after WWII that would basically allow free trade, travel and rights of residence between the US and the UK was floated by Anglophiles in the US foreign service. The defeat of Churchill and Atlee's socialism, and the alternative of NATO put an end to that. I wouldn't be surprised if Conrad Black weren't the source for this claim.

I think Trovatore is hugely off the mark with the national myth argument. American exceptionalism is about self-government and the rights of individuals as opposed to some dynastic spat with the Hanovers. There's no suggest the US return to become a constituent country of the UK, just a mutual extension of common rights--a removal of barriers, not a submission of one nation to the other. μηδείς (talk) 20:23, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, so it's certainly true that the liberal idea is more important than the specific beef with George III, but no, I still don't see the US joining a club set up by the British to mark the remains of their former empire. I could see the US and the UK starting a similar club together, and then that expanding to envelop the Commonwealth; that would be much easier to sell. --Trovatore (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the UK and Commonwealth Nations were to apply for US Statehood, on the other hand... ;) Blueboar (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would depend on how they were projected to vote, and whether the party that expected to benefit had enough power to push it through Congress. --Trovatore (talk) 23:09, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am for anything that means Downton Abbey comes out in the Fall in the US, not the following January, missing the Christmas special. μηδείς (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We all have our priorities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and statehood wouldn't work. States are required to have republican forms of government, and no titles of nobility can be held or given by the US or its citizens. μηδείς (talk) 03:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Either it becoming subservient to us, or us becoming subservient to it, in any way, shape or form politically, would be unconstitutional. Unless they buy us, piece by piece (hence the ever-expanding presence of British Petroleum, British Telecomm, etc.) Unless the Chinese buy us first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Commonwealth can't buy anything, as it isn't a nation - the UK is one of 53 co-equal members. Alansplodge (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be any advantage to the US to join it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More opportunities to win sporting medals, at the Commonwealth Games. They've just reintroduced basketball, so.... HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're talkin'. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But only if you give up baseball for cricket. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket is good. Just keep soccer out of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Canada plays a leading role in the Commonwealth without any great proficiency in these disciplines (you forgot about Rugby). Alansplodge (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific research on the formation of correct theories that had too little information

It's been a few centuries since literary scholars started to give significance to symbolism, claiming it enhances the emotions evoked by a story. For instance, scary scenes frequently occur at night, and modern psychology can find justifications to that (e.g. see priming). Many religions have seemingly senseless rituals, such as circumcision, and today we know of several benefits to the operation (as well as drawbacks, but it's still surprising).

We can assume that ancient authors felt the effects derived from symbolism, while the circumcision example is harder to answer (from a naturalistic POV, anyway). Do people (historians, sociologists, psychologist or even journalists) investigate how some theories could form to be correct without understanding why? Thanks, 84.109.248.221 (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't underestimate the value of trial-and-error. For example, starving people tried eating everything, and eventually found out which foods are edible and which are not, without any knowledge of the chemistry that makes foods either edible or inedible. Many people probably died in the process, but most just spat out something they found to be extremely bitter or otherwise unpalatable.

Memetics is also a form of trial-and-error, where behaviors which tend to prolong life and produce more offspring are passed down, while those which don't quickly die out. So, for example, a culture which just defecates wherever they feel like it will lose many more people to disease, than one which uses proper latrines. Over time, the culture which uses latrines will have it's population rise relative to the other, and thus that practice will prevail.

Note that the reason the one culture uses latrines might have nothing to do with disease. They might do so because "God commands it", for example. The justification for the behavior doesn't matter, as far as whether it's passed down, only the results matter. Thus, we get traditional Chinese medicine cures which may actually work, while the explanation for how they work is total BS.

And this also happens in Western medicine. There are many medicines which had been in use long before we knew exactly how they worked. We still have a few like that today. StuRat (talk) 21:07, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General anaesthetics are a major example of the latter. Equisetum (talk | contributions) 22:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) The short answer is "yes", people (historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, etc. etc.) do make attempts to identify the symbolic significance of such things and, ultimately, how and why they came to be popular. There are a large number of articles on circumcision on Wikipedia (and let's not suggest that they should be trimmed...); the one you might want to investigate further is History of male circumcision and some of the related links in the bibliography. Matt Deres (talk) 21:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Satan" (1829) - painting by John Partridge, English artist

In the article about the nineteenth-century English artist, John Partridge, in the section 'Selected works', there is a reference to a painting entitled "Satan" ( which I believe to be based on the figure in Milton's "Paradise Lost" ). However, nothing is stated about the source of this reference. I am trying to discover the whereabouts - past or present - of this painting and / or any other information about it. I would be very grateful if you could help with this research, please. Many thanks. 87.113.154.172 (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Addict added the information in 2007 (here with the edit summary "Expanding from ODNB & NPG") and she is still around the place so may have some more information. Thincat (talk) 22:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ODNB merely reports the painting as a "larger work" of 1829 contributed to the British Institution [1] and the following sources are given for the entire article. Thincat (talk) 22:57, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The information came from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry by R.E. Graves (revised Charles Noble)[2], which states "...Partridge exhibited subject pictures. He showed some of these at the Royal Academy, and also in Liverpool and Dublin, but most at the British Institution between 1816 and 1861. To the last of these he additionally contributed small studies, but also on occasion larger works, like Satan in 1829 and L'allegrezza in 1833. Such paintings encompassed literary, Italian, and Scottish themes, genre, and landscapes, and often depicted children." Their source is probably "A. Graves, The British Institution, 1806–1867: a complete dictionary of contributors and their work from the foundation of the Institution (1875); facs. edn (1908); repr. (1969)"

Hope this is of assistance; I'm sorry I don't have any further information. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone link to an image of this painting? I have sought, but not found. μηδείς (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Satan" (1829) - painting by John Partridge, English artist

Thank you so much to Thincat, Espresso Addict and μηδείς for their helpful contributions to answering my query about the painting. μηδείς, thank you for the posted request for a link to an image of the picture; if one is forthcoming, that would be marvellous ( though perhaps unlikely, I realize ). Thank you to Espresso Addict for adding the reference to the painting in the first place ! 87.113.154.172 (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]