Humanities desk
< July 31	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 2 >

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.

August 1

Why are the Big Four all private companies?

In almost every other industry, the largest players are all public companies, with most of them listed on the stock exchange. So what's special about the accounting industry that makes their largest companies private instead? My other car is a cadr (talk) 08:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since they audit public companies, there could be conflict of interest problems if investors had a piece of both sides, especially a 51% piece. I know I'd go easier on my own company, if I had the chance, and I'm barely even greedy or sleazy. Not sure if there's a law or policy against it, just seems to make sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as the "Legal structure" section says, these companies aren't companies, but professional services networks. And that's where this layman gives up. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't give up, don't give up, don't give up. --Askedonty (talk) 09:12, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As InedibleHulk suggests, selling public securities would risk compromising the firms' independence. Auditors are required by Rule 2-01 of Regulation S-X, promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission, to maintain independence of their public audit clients. In addition, accounting firms do not really need to sell securities to raise capital. Their main outlays are for employee compensation and rent, and both of these are current expenses. While they do have some capital costs, such as for computer systems, they are able to raise funds for these without selling public securities. John M Baker (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a practical example, see Arthur Andersen and what happened to it when the Big Four was the Big Five. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, the private ownership of a big four company has less to do with conflicts of interest and more to do with the fact that it's a professional service firm - it has very little assets beyond its employees and is thus owned by its employees (or, rather, a small part of its most senior employees). Thus they don't need capital and the costs associated with it (shareholders, after all, require return on equity). In a lot of countries, where non-compete clauses are not enforced, it is very easy for these senior employees to get up and leave, taking the clients (and even junior employees) with them, and they would do it if the profits that they make were to be "eaten" by passive shareholders. The same structure is typical for other professional service firms, especially law firms.No longer a penguin (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that in most jurisdictions law firms are legally required to restrict ownership to lawyers who currently provide or previously provided legal services at the firm. John M Baker (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Differences and similarities Quebeckers and Acadians

What are the differences between the Quebeckers and Acadians? What are the similarities they share? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.249 (talk) 14:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia will not do your homework for you. Read French Canadian and Acadians. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not homework. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.249 (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia also has an article titled Québécois (word) which may lead you interesting places. --Jayron 32 23:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Quebecers were three-time champions. "The Acadian Giant" and "The Canadian Earthquake" were just odd together. That's the main difference, anyway. As was said, there are others in the articles.

As for similarities, they're all required to help pay for the longest election campaign in Canadian history instead of useful things. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Historic map of Acadia in Canada

Is there an actual historic map of Acadia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.16.249 (talk) 14:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. There are many. You will find one in the Acadia article here. You might also look at Historical Maps of Canada or this article by Library and Archives Canada or this article about a recently-discovered 1699 map or the very thorough Lloyd Reeds Map Collection, especially Chapter 4. 184.147.133.47 (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Left-handed people

At the time of this posting, Wikipedia does not have Category:Left-handed people. What are some examples of notable left-handers, past or present?
—Wavelength (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If there are people for whom their handedness is of substantial importance, then a category for such people might be interesting. On the other hand, a list of any sort of people who happen to be left-handed is simply trivia at best, and a great idea for a "clickbait" page for sure. We also do not have a category for polydactylia, etc. but they are listed where the fact is notable for the person in the Polydactyly article. The idea of categories is not "make them because we can" but make those which are likely to be of use to someone. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It can be very significant in sports. Warren Spahn, Sandy Koufax and Steve Carlton come to mind as famous lefty pitchers. And of course Lefty Grove and Lefty Gomez. President Obama is left-handed, and he's fairly famous. There is a Category:Handedness, for what it's worth. And just to confuse the issue, Brooks Robinson batted and threw right-handed, and wrote left-handed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southpaw boxers is one where it matters. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Curie. Bill Gates. M.C. Escher. Monica Seles. Mozart. Napoleon. LeBron James. Queen Victoria (and several of her descendants). Stan Lee. Van Gogh. Oprah Winfrey. See [1] [2] [3] [4] and many more such lists. (BTW, this was the latest deletion discussion about having the category on Wikipedia.) 184.147.133.47 (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a job for Wikidata. This query could be a start. Gabbe (talk) 20:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't trust any of those lists, as names tend to be added to them on flimsy or no evidence.

rightleftrightwrong.com seems to be a Snopes-like site for these claims. Of the people on your list, it says there's no evidence that Marie Curie, Mozart, Napoleon, Prince Charles, or van Gogh were/are left-handed, and that Queen Victoria wrote right-handed. Those claims aren't sourced either, but I'm inclined to believe that site over the lists.

One of the lists you linked ([5]) is better since it shows pictures of many of the people writing with their left hands, but it's still possible that the images were inadvertently mirrored. -- BenRG (talk) 08:39, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also Handedness of Presidents of the United States and List of musicians who play left-handed--Pacostein (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then there are those musicians whose left-handedness was enforced through injury, such as Category:Classical pianists who played with one arm, for which a whole sub-repertoire has emerged (see List of works for piano left-hand and orchestra, for example). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can add Jon Stewart to the list. Dismas|^(talk) 09:26, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]