Humanities desk
< April 22	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 24 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

April 23

Radios/televisions in waiting rooms

In the US it's fairly common for waiting rooms (at doctors' offices, car repair places, etc) to have a TV on the wall, usually tuned to a court show or Ellen DeGeneres. My question is, how long has this been going on? Back in the 1930's, would you go into a waiting room and find a radio playing? LANTZY ^TALK 01:41, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question. The practice is somewhat informal, and in many jurisdictions today may be illicit or illegal unless the business in question has paid for an appropriate licence (see also Performing rights organization), but I'd guess that this is a much more recent development than the '30s. I cannot offhand recall any mention of such a practice in period-set literature, including work written contemporaneously, but my fallible memory is weak as evidence. I look forward to answers from others. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the hospital waiting room with a broken toe the night John Lennon was murdered, and heard the breaking news on TV. I believe it was a paid cable subscription. "Commercial" cable subscriptions are available for just that purpose. μηδείς (talk) 02:21, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I myself never saw a TV in a waiting room before the early 2000's, so I figured that it was a recent trend having something to do with the falling cost and weight of TV sets. By the same token, most school classrooms (at least in my area) now have TV sets, but this wasn't the case until about ten years ago. LANTZY ^TALK 03:30, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I also saw the Rodney King beating while waiting for the dentist, which made me ill. That was 1992, right? μηδείς (talk) 03:59, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The beating occurred in 1991, and the riot following acquittal of the cops came in 1992. We're right around the 25th anniversary of the riot. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It was at the time of the riots, so it must have been 1992. I remember getting off the train on the day of the acquittal, and being warned by the locals, as a white person, that I might face some violence. Only the police harassed me for being white in a colored neighbourhood. μηδείς (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen a TV in a medical or dental waiting room and seeing one would annoy the heck out of me there. There are usually only magazines in those places. I do see TV sets in car repair places sometimes. 173.228.123.121 (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the UK the TV screens usually show an information newsreel about the practice. The one in my therapy practice shows the CCTV pictures of the car park, for security purposes. I've only ever seen one tuned to a broadcast channel and it annoyed the hell out of me! TammyMoet (talk) 09:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See TV-B-Gone. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some bank branches in Britain have large screens showing BBC or Sky News. Same goes for public libraries. Some council service centres have a television tuned to one of the domestic free - to - air channels. Some hospitals have either a communal screen or individual bedside televisions. 79.73.128.211 (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I think we've adequately established that this phenomenon is widespread now (I can add that it's common practice in the UK for Charity [Thrift] shops to have a radio playing), and in our mutual personal experiences dates back to at least the early '90s, but the Lantzy wants to know how far it goes back, and if it was used (with radio) in the 1930s. Anyone got any ideas about finding references that actually address the question? (I confess I haven't.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.217.249.244 (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This may provide a start for one's research. --Jayron 32 12:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At what point does a person become a gentleman/-woman?

I once read and later watched Great Expectations, by Charles Dickens. Basically, Pip gave Magwitch some food, and in return, Magwitch made Pip a gentleman. Magwitch's own hard work (somewhere in Australia?) was the source of wealth. At that time, what did the gentry do to pass the time? Would other people accept people who received great wealth but lacked the manners of the upper class? Is it possible to hire a governess so that the next generation can mingle with the upper class? In modern times, what does it take to become part of the gentry, where a person just lives on immense inherited wealth and receives income from leasing land to tenants? I can't imagine a lifestyle of not working. Must be boring. How does one pass the time? How does one become a gentleman/-woman in the 21st century? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's multiple questions here:

1) what did the gentry do to pass the time? Depends on gender, and to some degree on the era. As far back as the middle ages (if not Rome), reading, formal dancing, and dinner parties (or feasts) could be found among both genders, while (at least as far back as the middle ages) men might hunt.

2) Would other people accept people who received great wealth but lacked the manners of the upper class? See Nouveau riche and Parvenu. There's other works that specifically deal with other rich people going "ew, he was born poor, so he's not as good as us."

3) Is it possible to hire a governess so that the next generation can mingle with the upper class? Back then, yes.

4) In modern times, what does it take to become part of the gentry, where a person just lives on immense inherited wealth and receives income from leasing land to tenants? That's not quite a thing anymore. Inheriting wealth, like back then, almost always involves being born into a rich family. Pip's inheritance was the equivalent of receiving a winning lottery ticket from a homeless guy you one gave your change to. Aside from that, the only other real option would be to marry into a rich family, which they actively discouraged back then, would likely be passively discouraged now, and still wouldn't guarantee inheritance. The parents might approve of the marriage without conflict, only to re-write their will stating that their wealth goes into a trust fund that only helps the grandchildren.

5) How does one pass the time? I'm assuming this is about what the "gentry" do these days, otherwise, see question 2. Stereotypes (at least for younger rich people) include parties, drugs, and making people from developed countries look bad, but here's an article of the most common admitted hobbies of the 1% wealthiest people.

6) How does one become a gentleman/-woman in the 21st century? Nowadays, the word is used to refer to behavior rather than wealth. Someone with money who is useless, causes trouble, and insults people is a shit-head no matter how much money they have. Someone who is polite, helpful, and at least shows an interest in education is generally regarded as a gentle(wo)man.

Ian.thomson (talk) 10:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is a gentleman? Yes, we have an article with that title. But the term is used for anyone. There is no one who is not a gentleman. This is a term which is used in reference to any man. Yes, it puts the man in good light, but it is understood to be loosely applied. I believe I have seen footage of courtroom moments when an accused sociopath is referred to by courtroom personnel as a "gentleman". From this I conclude that a "gentleman" is a person who uses violence to end another person's life. Bus stop (talk) 11:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gentleman as a social status and gentleman as a term of address are two different things. The question is about the former, your answer about the latter. (As for your video footage, I sincerely doubt that the addressors actually consider the man they are addressing as "gentlemen" to be such. - Nunh-huh 00:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. There are two different usages of the term, and the question concerned the usage pertaining to social standing, rather than the much more general reference to a man. But I still find it hard to accept the reference to an accused killer as a gentleman. I guess the possibility exists that the killing was done with the utmost of care and with minimal pain. Anyway, your point is well taken. My reference is off-topic. I'm just having fun with the language. Bus stop (talk) 11:29, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who is only accused is innocent, by legal definition. See presumption of innocence. Surely they would still quality as "gentle"? Come to think of it, doesn't Jaggers tear a strip off someone for making the same kind of presumed guilt statement? Matt Deres (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ideologies

How do the tendencies to subscribe to various moral ideologies vary based on race, geography, and socioeconomic status? Benjamin (talk) 04:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjaminikuta—that is a topic for discussion. I don't think it is a question. Open-ended discussions are not what the Reference desks should be about. I feel the area of inquiry you've outlined is ill-defined. Bus stop (talk) 05:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help me reword it? Benjamin (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to ask? This is different from what would you like to discuss. Questions should be defined, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so, I don't want to discuss it here of course, but I would rather like to ask for sources that do discuss it. Benjamin (talk) 05:26, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me some examples of moral ideologies? I think I know the meaning of "race, geography, and socioeconomic status", but I'm wondering about "moral ideologies". Bus stop (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hedonism, Virtue ethics, Ethical intuitionism, etc. Benjamin (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basically what I'm looking for is something like this, but for the general population. Presumably with more basic questions. Analyzed in relation to the variables I mentioned. Benjamin (talk) 06:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of morality. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benjaminikuta—I find the question inappropriate. Some people are bad and some people are good, based on "race, geography, and socioeconomic status"? Should we have a discussion to analyze people and in the process isolate those with moral shortcomings? Correct me if I am wrong but I think that is where this discussion, if undertaken, is going. Bus stop (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said before, and as it should be presumed, I'm not interested in, and I am not asking for, your opinion. I don't want to have a discussion. I'm asking for sources. Benjamin (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is my hope that some of the participants here provide you with sources. I think some sources or suggestions have been provided by other editors and I hope more will be forthcoming. Bus stop (talk) 20:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the hat, as I don't see how this Q is inappropriate. As for sources, Friedrich Nietzsche's Superman and Machiavelli's The Prince argue for there being people at the top of society who should not feel bound by the morality of society. The Divine Right of Kings and Droit du seigneur (partially fictional/partially real) are other examples of this philosophy. StuRat (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Some people bad / And some people good / Too bad the bad / Can't be like the good / But everything changes a little / and it should / Good ain't forever / And bad ain't for good." --Roger Miller ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds awfully like some general school question asking for some thought on the part of the student to pick on some aspect. If so can I suggest you have a look at the difference between the society oriented way many people in Asia do things compared to the more individualistic aims of people in Europe and America. That should be good for a reasonable essay if you do a bit of your own research. Dmcq (talk) 18:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get that a lot, but no, it's not for an assignment, just my own curiosity, and perhaps, if I find some good sources, and have the time, for the improvement of Wikipedia. Benjamin (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried looking for an introductory book on moral philosophy? I think when you say "ideologies" in your question, the term more frequently used in the discourse is "philosophies". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths in the Great Depression

Did people die in the Great Depression? 31.54.250.188 (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously yes, but I suspect you are asking if they died in greater numbers. The Dust Bowl, which was concurrent, did kill some due to dust pneumonia. It can be argued that the GD was at least in part responsible for these deaths, as people then lacked the resources to move somewhere safer, adequately seal their homes, buy dust masks, or get medical treatment. StuRat (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you google "Starvation in the Great Depression" you'll get a lot of potentially useful hits. Loraof (talk) 16:31, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) To the extent that economic depression may be associated with (if not directly blamed for) an increase in the incidence of psycological depression, it might be possible to extrapolate a mortality rate that can be attributed to the Great Depression. (Do try to keep in mind that the Great Depression was global in scope, not a domestic US issue.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The results seem counterintuitive; life expectancy increased dramatically during the Great Depression, at least in the U.S. --Jayron 32 12:38, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not that counterintuitive, If you read the cited link. Apparently the economic growth of the previous era resulted in firms demanding that their workers would have to work overtime and work at faster paces, to cover the demands of the job. This led to an increase in work-related stress. Some of these workers turned to alcohol and tobacco consumption, in search of stress relief. The work conditions of the era also led to an increase in work-related injuries, sleep reduction or sleep deprivation, and unhealthy diet.

In the recession, the work-load and associated demands decreased. Workers were working at a slower pace again, there was more time for them to sleep. Their spending money had decreased, but this decreased their opportunities to purchase alcohol and tobacco.

In any case, the increase in life expectancy was small. In 1929, the life expectancy was 57.1 years. In 1932, during the Great Depression, it had increased to 63.3 years. The more impressive part of the research is that there were no apparent deviations in this increase: "The increase occurred for both men and women, and for whites and non-whites." Dimadick (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a study of how depressions affect population statistics see this new book [1]. 86.168.123.128 (talk) 12:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A 6-year increase in life expectancy in 3 years is hardly "small". Prior to that, it would be rare to see such a jump in a short period of time. --Jayron 32 13:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

International Crisis in France 1937

What was it. Was general strike, that was mentioned in 1937 but has no article. Or is it something else. International in nature. scope_creep (talk) 17:22, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think there was an "International Crisis" in France during that year? Did you read about it somewhere? We might be better able to answer your question if we knew the context of where you saw it. Blueboar (talk) 17:42, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have 1937 in France, and there is a more detailed list at French Wikipedia. There were domestic crises, including severe inflation and devaluation of the franc. The only international event I can think of was not a crisis, the Paris EXPO. 174.88.10.107 (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scope_creep -- Such events were discussed at length in the book "The Collapse of the Third Republic", but I read it 30 years ago, and so can't remember details now... AnonMoos (talk)

Popular Front (France)#Collapse has some information. French Section of the Workers' International#Communist split and Popular Front has some as well. There was some economic issues that brought down the government of Leon Blum, also some internal politics as the left in France split along communist vs. moderate socialist lines. --Jayron 32 13:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

British police

When you call 999 for the police in Britain, does the nearest officer respond regardless of whether they are walking the beat as part of a neighbourhood/community team, a firearms team, a CID, specialist team, events team etc? Or is it only patrols which are specifically tasked with responding to emergency calls? 82.132.220.210 (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the reported incident. When you call 999, it is answered by one of the BT centers. They then route the call to the Police control centre for the area in which you're calling. That ops center determine who needs to respond and when (immediately, in the next hour or so, in the next 48-72 hours by appointment or not at all). They also allocate the appropiate resources depending on the report.[2][3][4] Nanonic (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(ec):Here is what one force says about the matter. I think the only general answer would be that it depends on the nature of the emergency you are calling about. (For comparison, here is an answer about calling 999 for an ambulance, and here for the fire service.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 19:29, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do people still have to "do their taxes" (whatever that means) if they already receive money in a pay card?

All I know is that I work and receive a paycheck every 2 weeks. The pay slip reports my after-tax/disposable income, minus funds that go into social security and medicare, which is deposited into my pay card and can be used like a debit card or transferred to a checking/savings bank account. Does one still have to "do taxes" when the taxes are already done by the accountant in the organization's payroll? Or does "doing taxes" just mean the tax return? How often do citizens do tax returns? When do people do tax returns? I swear I've seen one of those tax return forms at the public library and a tax return mailbox at the post office. So, does this mean I just have to fill one of those forms at any time of the year and drop it at the post office? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You want to get one of those forms and have a look at it. There may be instructions attached - for example it may ask you to provide details up to the end of the tax year. In Britain it's 5 April and in Australia it's 30 June. Income tax in the United States may be useful - it doesn't say specifically when the tax year ends but it appears to be coterminous with the calendar year. 79.73.128.211 (talk) 18:46, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are in the US, the taxes withheld and reported on your pay slip are just an estimate of how much you owe. Every year, by April 15 or the first working day thereafter, you have to file a tax form, IRS form 1040 or a variant of it (see www.irs.gov), on which you compute your actual tax bill for the previous calendar year. If you have overpaid, you'll get a refund, while if you've underpaid you'll send them money. Loraof (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In short, if you have earned any income in a given year, you must at least file a tax return (in most of the US, you actually have to file two different forms... one goes to the Federal government, and one goes to your State government). You may or may not have to pay any tax ... and you may get a refund. Blueboar (talk) 21:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly true; people making under a certain amount don't have to file. But often it will be to their advantage to do so, as they will get money back. - Nunh-huh 00:33, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Form 1040 (for work income) and Form 1099 (for other income) both have information on when you do and do not have to file. --Jayron 32 13:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no single answer to this question. It depends on country, and personal circumstances. In general the way you're paid doesn't make any difference with regard to income taxes; what matters to taxing authorities is the amount of income. Tax form may be a good starting point. If you're in the U.S., the IRS website is the place to go ([5] [6]), and don't forget to check information for your state/territory/etc. as well. In some cases even if you're not legally required to file a tax return, you may still want to in order to get money back, such as if you qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit in the U.S. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It may help to think of it like this: your employer only knows what they pay you, but the government is interested in all the income you made (and also your dependents and other stuff). Your employer cannot possibly file a complete return on your behalf. Matt Deres (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on how complicated a country's tax code is. Foreign nationals working in Switzerland are taxed at their employer, interest / stock income is taxed at the bank / broker, and provided you have no other sources of income to declare (and less than ~$500,000 in assets, and held only one job at a time, etc.) you are not required to file any forms. The relevant information on marital status, dependents, etc. is all required to be registered when you establish residence in Switzerland anyway. Dragons flight (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The complication of U.S. tax code is partly (though not entirely) due to the system of escrow set up (called "withholding" in the U.S. tax system) whereby a portion of every pay check is held aside. At the end of the tax year, your actual tax obligation is compared to the amount held in escrow; if you owe more than that, you make up the difference. If you owe less, some of the escrowed money is returned to you. The amount of tax you owe is calculated retrospectively based on what you actually made, while the amount withheld in escrow is based on what you anticipate you were going to make. --Jayron 32 14:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But depending on the specific countries, the home nation of that foreign national may also have an interest in how much that person is earning. We don't seem to have a generic article on the subject "foreign income", but see Black Money (Undisclosed Foreign Income and Assets) and Imposition of Tax Act, 2015 for a (very brief) example. Matt Deres (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm pretty sure Df is referring to someone living and working for most of the year in Switzerland. And it's actually very, very rare the home nation of a foreign national living most (or all) of the year in another country cares about how much they earn. The Black Money article isn't relevant to this since it concerns people living primarily in India with foreign income. Money earned overseas by a tax resident is something many countries do tend to take an interest in, regardless of the citizenship of that tax resident.

Money earned in their place of residence of country A by someone who is not a tax resident of country B, even if they are a citizen of country B, is not generally something country B takes an interest in. While the definition of tax residence varies, if often requires you either spend more than half a year in that country or have some other strong financial ties. Definitely it's very uncommon that you'll be consider a tax resident (or be expected to pay tax) if you don't spend any time or have any financial connection to the country. It's often claimed that the US is one of only 3 countries in the world who takes an interest in the income of all their citizens regardless of where they are residing and what ties other than citizenship they have to the US, although I've never entirely trusted these sources.

Note that NZ is mostly like Switzerland. We do have a progressive tax rate but provided you only have one job and can be reasonably sure of how much you will earn, you just have to make sure you provide the right tax code to the bank so it's taxed at the right rate (it's taxed at the highest rate you have to pay, and your primary income i.e. your job will pay the lower rate to the limit, then the next rate). There are also some small allowances for minor incidental underpayments, but you are generally expected to ensure you've done everything correctly so are paying the right amount or file a tax return if you didn't or for some reason it's needed. (You will be asked to file one if the government has reason to think it's needed.) Of course, if you overpay, you're free to file a tax return if needed, or in some cases requesting a personal tax summary is enough. Otherwise it's your tough luck. Where the NZ system can fail is when you have multiple jobs (although there are some options for this, including a special tax code [7]), or don't work the whole year, or your income isn't very predictable and when you have foreign income or other income where tax isn't paid (e.g. the self employed).

Nil Einne (talk) 12:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]