Humanities desk
< May 2	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 4 >

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.

May 3[edit]

Tracking down this publication[edit]

My apologies for asking here twice in such a short span. I am trying to track down a mysterious publication, which would contain numerous images of Byzantine composers, many of whom do not currently have images on Wikipedia. The source I'm going off says "Kassia is the only woman picture in the frontispiece of a Triodion, a Lenten liturgical service book, printed in Venice in 1601, which also included pictures of twenty-nine of Byzantine church's leading hymnographers." The subsequent footnote says "A reproduction can be found in Acta Sanctorum, Iunii (Paris and Rome, 1967), p. xvii". The year may be miswritten and actually be 1867. I've found quite a few publications that seem to be it, but am getting largely confused and lost in this search so any assistance would be appreciated. Aza24 (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Acta Sanctorum is a massive project of the lives of the saints begun in 1643 and completed in 1940. I think that the 1967 date may be correct and refers to a reprint year of the edition in question. Iunii indicates that it’s one of the seven volumes dedicated to the saints whose feast days fall in the month of June (when searching you may find better luck spelling it Junii—remember that absurd scene from Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and the anachronistic J tile). From what I’ve seen of the original editions of the Acta Sanctorum, they’re all pure text so the reproduction of the frontispiece may be exclusive to the 1967 reprint. I found a few full-text indices of the Acta, but none turned up the text Kassia which supports my intuition. Most likely, your best bet would be to see if you can find the volume(s) through interlibrary loan. D A Hosek (talk) 04:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This information is from Touliatos, Diane (1996). "Kassia". In Schleifer, Martha Furman; Glickman, Sylvia (eds.). Women Composers: Music Through The Ages. Vol. 1: Composers Born Before 1599. New York: G. K. Hall. pp. 1–2. ISBN 978-0-8161-0926-5.

If I understand the OP correctly, they are not looking for the Acta Sanctorum, but for the 1601 Venetian edition of the Lenten Triodion. According to this web page, the frontispice is a group portrait featuring 29 Byzantine hymnographers including Kassiane, so the reproduction in the 1967 edition of the Acta Sanctorum, Iunii may serve as well, but the faces as depicted will have sprouted from the imagination of the early 17th-century artist, and with 29 faces on one page there will not be much detail. --Lambiam 18:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can Americans bear noble titles?[edit]

I was working on some articles and a user removed the title of "Prince" from the page Ivan Sergeyevich Obolensky, their reason being As an American citizen he cannot bear any title of nobility, except in the context of society events. I've been trying to find somewhere that states this law but am unable to do so. - Cosmic (talk) 03:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the constitution says is: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States; And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." AnonMoos (talk) 04:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also Titles of Nobility Amendment (unratified).AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The constitution does not rule out American citizens bearing hereditary titles, and the prohibition of accepting a title of nobility only applies to US office holders. While the argument for removing the title was wrong, I think, hwever, it should only be included if the subject was habitually referred to with that title. He is named as "Prince Ivan Sergeievich Obolensky-Neledinsky-Meletsky" on the website of the Russian Nobility Association,^[1] but that appears to be exceptional. --Lambiam 08:28, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no prohibition on Americans from holding foreign-granted titles, being granted such titles, etc. The only prohibition is on sitting office holders, generally taken to mean judges, elected congresspeople and senators, executive branch officials, etc. from accepting the such titles while in office, or of benefiting from them. Several American citizens have or have had titles. Several that pop into mind are Christopher Guest, the actor/director/writer, who holds a British barony and has even sat in Lords at one point. William Waldorf Astor, of the famous hotelier family, was made a Viscount. Several members of the Vanderbilt family either married into, or acquired, titles, such as Gladys Vanderbilt Széchenyi. Wikipedia even has an article titled List of Americans who held noble titles from other countries. --Jayron 32 12:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A curiosity -- are there any such examples who held the title in their own right and had only American citizenship? --Trovatore (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prince Ivan Sergeyevich Obolensky, being the son of a US citizen, was an American citizen by birth who inherited the princely title (knyaz) from his father. I see no indication that he held any other citizenship. --Lambiam 07:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the Lords Fairfax which descended from Bryan Fairfax, 8th Lord Fairfax of Cameron were, AFAIK, only U.S. citizens, and did not have British citizenship until Albert Fairfax, 12th Lord Fairfax of Cameron moved back to Britain to claim his place in Lords. --Jayron 32 11:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Earl of Wharncliffe and (looking to the future) Earl of Essex. —Tamfang (talk) 01:59, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We had Sir Allen Stanford for a while, but they rescinded his knighthood once his scams became publicized, so now he's up the creek (i.e. in prison) without a title. Certainly though, what US law says about the official use of such titles doesn't affect what Wikipedia or anyone else is allowed to call the person. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:4671 (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, obligatory link to Emperor Norton as a humorous tangent to this discussion, as must always be brought up at least once. --Jayron 32 12:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention Duke Ellington! Chuntuk (talk) 13:10, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we're doing this I can't let Count Basie be overlooked. Card Zero (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the Duke of Earl. --Trovatore (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Come to think of it, there was First Lord Timothy Dexter. Ime the first Lord in the younited States of A mercary Now of Newburyport it is the voise of the peopel and I cant Help it and so Let it goue Card Zero (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not forget the un-entitled Marquis Hill, Art Baron or Joey Baron. Or the artist formerly known as Prince, although I'm not sure whether he considered himself to be royal or noble. MinorProphet (talk) 13:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USA: Does increase in minimum wage cause an increase in 1099 jobs?[edit]

1099 jobs are not affected by minimum wage laws, as well as overtime laws. No federal/state taxes are taken out. I guess the #1 reason being a 1099 company benefits owners are they do not have to pay health insurance? So as min. wage goes up, can more companies convert to being 1099? Googling minimum wage increase with 1099 shows articles without the 1099 part heh. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 08:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

People have been studying the effect of minimum wage since the 1930s. Technically, they studied it before then because there were arguments for an against it when it was implemented. In the end, the only thing that increasing minimum is guaranteed to do is increase the number of people making minimum wage. For everything else, you can find studies that go both ways. Most are politically motivated studies, but even academic ones are inconclusive because it depends on too many other things as well as the time period you choose. Changes one month after an increase should be very different than changes a year later. But, no matter what else happens, the total number of people making minimum wage will initially increase. Over time, that can change. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the confused; "A 1099 job is a job that is performed by a self-employed contractor or business owner as opposed to an employee hired by a business or self-employed contractor" [2] Apparently named after a US tax form. Alansplodge (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is yes as section 1099 covers non-employment income (including independent contractors) of at least $600. a year. If the payment is only for merchandise, transport, communications, and similar matters it may not need to be reported. As a self-employed person, you would also have to pay Medicare and Social Security taxes. Consult a tax expert. DOR (HK) (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant tax forms for context: people having a regular job that pays a regular salary get Form W-2, and those get Form 1099 for being an independent contractor or receiving other types of income. Thus you get the common shorthand "W-2" vs. "1099" jobs.[3] Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify also, the W-2 is a form your employer gives YOU, the worker, detailing your relevant employment income. As a taxpayer, you file two forms: a Form 1040, where you report employment income, and a Form 1099, where you report all other income. While the common colloquialism is to refer to "W-2" employees and "1099" independent contractors, it's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison, since the analogous form to a 1099 for employment income is a 1040. The reason for the two different forms is the way income is tracked; payroll taxes are under a different system than contract work, which is not considered payroll for either the company or the person they are paying. The 1099 is probably not the best designed form for the job, since it is basically a "miscellaneous income" form; but it was designed before the gig economy made independent contractors a major class of workers. There are a whole lot of other IRS tax forms in the US, but the average US worker handles about 4 of them: A form W-4, which allows the employee to notify the employer how much money to withhold from their paycheck in escrow to cover their anticipated tax liability, a form W-2, which notifies the employee how much was actually withheld that year, a form 1040, which allows the employee to report their taxable income and authorize application of the withheld income from escrow to pay the taxes, and the Form 1099, ~~which is where the employee reports taxable income not covered by the W-2.~~ edit: which is sent to the taxpayer to allow them to report taxable income not covered by the W-2. --Jayron 32 12:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the various forms 1099 are filed by the payor, not the taxpayer. You might have to file a 1099 if you hire a contractor for work that costs more than the threshold ($600 from memory), but you don't file a 1099 for money you earn outside wages, salaries, tips — it's filed by the person who pays you, and a copy is sent to you, which perhaps you attach to your return, but you don't fill it out yourself. --Trovatore (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm not sure what happens if the payor doesn't send you one. In that case it's possible you have to fill it out yourself — I'm not an expert in this area.) --Trovatore (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, yes you are correct. The 1099 is sent to the taxpayer; the information on the 1099 is used to fill out the requisite fields on the 1040 to calculate one's tax liability. Mea culpa. So corrected. --Jayron 32 18:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]