Humanities desk
< February 23	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 25 >

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.

February 24

Ludovic Kennedy - review of Mark Peel's The Land of Lost Content

In 1996, Ludovic Kennedy wrote a review of Mark Peel's book The Land of Lost Content, ISBN 1-85821-400-9. The review was published in a major UK newspaper. It was entitled "Too small a man in too big a job?" A subheading (perhaps called a byline in some places) said "Ludovic Kennedy assesses the good and bad marks of a controversial Head". The image caption reads "Chenevix-Trench at Eton in 1964: 'He never bore a grudge'".

I've searched with title and author on Questia and Highbeam, but either they don't have it or I'm Doing Something Wrong(TM).

Which newspaper? What was the date it was published? (And, if possible, page number?) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have checked The Times and the Guardian/Observer and the FT; it is none of those. Seems likely to be the Sunday Times, for which Ludo K. did write book reviews occasionally. Otherwise Daily or Sunday Telegraph or The Independent or the Independent on Sunday (none of these is fully electronically searchable for the year in question, unfortunately). I've tried Newsbank, which does have some items from those titles, but to no avail. -- Alarics (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a (extremely critical) review of this book in The Guardian (London) September 4, 1996 entitled "SIR, THE SADIST" written by Paul Foot but which mentions Ludovic Kennedy prominently - this is a reprint of the same article by Foot in the 'London Review of Books' --_nonsense ferret 13:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It turns out to be the Telegraph, although I'm still looking for exact date and page number. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for a lost reference

Hi, I was reading on the internet a while back, some article by a sociologist of religion. I only remember that he was an Evangelical/ Fundamentalist Christian (not sure which, or quite how strong, but quite strong in his beliefs) and his research had studied what makes people join a religion. He said that it was quite curious that they had found that it didn't matter what the religion was, as people began associating with it, it became progressively more likely, indeed almost certain, that they would join. Does anyone have any clue who the sociologist might be? I'm pretty sure he was from the US, and I don't think his name was extremely well known to the public, but he was fairly prominent in his field. IBE (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was Horst Wessel a capitalist and the first capitalist Nazi?

He wrote Horst-Wessel-Lied where he harshly condemn the Reds. Was he the first Nazi to openly express capitalism? Thank. Kotjap (talk) 13:45, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about Horst Wessel himself, but in the early days of the Nazi party, there were many members who rejected international / Marxist / Soviet / "Jewish" socialism, but were in favor of a socialism along German nationalist lines, and so were not necessarily supporters of unreconstructed capitalism in its then-current form. That's why the party was called the "National Socialist Party". Hitler discarded most of the meaningful socialist content in the 1930s... AnonMoos (talk) 13:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that opposition to one group of people does no no way imply support for a group that particular group opposes in turn. The Nazi opposition to "communism" had less to do with economic theory and more to do with their strong nationalism and political rivalry. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conditions of Oscar Pistorius' bail, or lack thereof

Dunno if someone can answer this question, but I might as well try.

Recently, I was reading of the (well publicised) decision to grant Oscar Pistorius bail. I make no comment on the correctness of this decision. However, one thing did very much surprise me.

In the media reports of the conditions set for Pistorius' bail, there appeared to be no mention of any condition that he surrender his firearms, and not possess any others. In the jurisdiction I come from (Australia) and presumably many other jurisdictions, such a condition would be absolutely included in a case of alleged murder (or even manslaughter / culpable homicide) by means of a firearm. (Well, any exceptions would be highly extraordinary, that's all I can say). What am I missing? Possibly the South African Police Force have already suspended his firearms licence(s) and seized his guns? Or has there been a (IMHO) gross oversight by the prosecutors on this issue?

Yes, I understand that South Africa is a dangerous country, and people may generally obtain licences to carry a gun in self-defence. But in a case like this (where, by all accounts, the accused has shot and killed an innocent person), surely there would be an exception?

(My question is very specific - please don't go into tangents on questions of Pistorius' guilt or innocence, or the correctness of the decision to grant him bail). 58.111.191.25 (talk) 13:48, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I can't remember where, but I read that he had to surrender his firearms. Duoduoduo (talk) 13:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The surrender of firearms is very much one of the many conditions placed on Pistorius's release on bail, to wit:

He appears in court on 4 June at 8.30am.
He surrenders all passports.
He refrains from applying for any passports.
He refrains from entering any airport.
He surrenders all firearms.
He refrains from possessing any firearms.
He refrains from talking to any witnesses for the prosecution.
He will have a probation officer and correctional official from the date of release until the conclusion of the case.
He shall inform the official of all his movements and ask for permission for any journeys outside Pretoria.
He shall give them a phone number and must be contactable day and night.
He must not be charged with an offence of violence against women.
He must not use drugs or alcohol.
He must not return to his home and must not make contact with any residents of his estate except the Stander family.

- Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)]][reply]

The ex governor of Illinois had to surrender his Illinois Firearms License when he was indicted. Shadowjams (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a journalist, I frequently reported on criminal defendants getting bail by mentioning only the financial amount. Most of the other conditions are boilerplate and imposed on everyone, with little or no discussion in court. Typically only the money gets any discussion. If one of the other conditions were an issue of contention, it would likely be mentioned in the media. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 17:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The surrender of firearms was certainly mentioned in the news reports I heard on BBC Radio 4, along with surrendering his passports and not being allowed to go to his home. --ColinFine (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, the surrender of firearms seems critical, to me. Even if we believe his story, that still makes him an idiot and/or delusional, in that he imagines intruders behind the bathroom door and opens fire on whoever's there, sight unseen. Such a person should never have access to firearms. StuRat (talk) 23:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please refrain from gratuitous violations of WP:BLP? μηδείς (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the gun crazy! United States, felons, domestic abusers, habitual drug users, and.......... people on bail are prohibited from possessing guns. Similarly many are prohibited from leaving the country, are required to check in, etc. South Africa has some quite strict gun laws. I suspect whatever this case is about, the gun aspect is the least important part. Shadowjams (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do price gouging laws not apply to the health care industry?

I was reading this article, which has many examples from people's bills, such as $283 for a chest X-ray which costs medicare-covered people $20.44, or (on page 2) $18 for a single diabetes test strip when a free market example of Amazon shows them freely available for 55 cents each. Are these not cases of price gouging? Or if so, why is health care exempted? 67.163.109.173 (talk) 14:02, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that these examples are outrageous, but they don't constitute price gouging. As our article defines it, price gouging occurs when suppliers drastically raise price in response to an emergency, for example when the price of plywood shoots up as a hurricane approaches. Looie496 (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The keyword you want is "chargemaster". Quote from the following article (which is referring to the Times article in your link) "Brill repeatedly discusses the "chargemaster," which is basically the internal price list at every hospital, which has no basis in reality whatsoever, but which the poorest patients, and those without insurance, or with limited insurance, are often hit over the head with. Throughout the article, Brill details over and over and over again how hospital administrators and spokespeople all refused to address the chargemaster at all, constantly blowing it off as no big deal, because so few people actually pay the list price. . A quick Google search for U.S chargemaster confirm this practice. ex: [1]. As Looie said it's not really price gouging, just a bad systematic setup based on distorted financial incentive. Lastly not ideal but very interesting reddit link. Royor (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that having an absurdly high Suggested Retail Price is by no means limited to the health care system. Many industries set the price at 10 times their cost, then announce 80% off sales. The difference, in the case of US health care, seems to be that some people (those without insurance or a government program negotiating the price down) have no choice but to be charged the full price. In many cases, they can just choose not to pay, and the health care system will just absorb that cost (tack even more onto everybody else's bill), but you occasionally run up against a health care provider that plays hardball, and actually insists on being paid at this absurdly high rate. StuRat (talk) 23:17, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! They sure as hell wouldn't just "absorb the cost" - more like refer the bill to collection and the fun time begin: collection -> law suit to garnish wages, failing that, repo. Royor (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in most cases, they don't pursue it to that degree. It just isn't in their business interest to do so. There's the cost of the bad publicity, cost of lawyers, and a fairly low possibility of recovering much cash, as people who've been chronically ill and racked up huge medical bills are often already broke. So, whether the patient declares bankruptcy or not, they aren't likely to be able to pay. They might also die before the legal mess clears. Better to just overcharge the next patient by even more, etc., until you find a sucker who actually pays. StuRat (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may sound like i am defending some of the absurd overcharging in the US healthcare industry, but you should understand that the economics are bizarre and there are just as many examples of services that are grossly underpaid for. Imagine a hardware store that must give plywood to anyone who walks in for free-- and those folks feel no obligation to pay at all, and many others with chits from the government that will pay the store 10 cents a sheet and you begin to understand why the store might be tempted to charge those willing to pay about 10x what it costs the store. The basic forces that produced this strange mess are (1) third party payment for most medical care so that consumers and doctors pay no attention to price, and (2) the expectation by a rising proportion of the population that they shouldnt have to pay for it but shouldnt be turned away. Watch what happens next year when the hardware stores are required to give plywood to 3x as many people for 7 cents a sheet. alteripse (talk) 02:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out, hospitals routinely do have to just absorb costs. Many without health insurance simply do not have the money to pay back the bills. No property, no vehicle, nothing that could really make a dent in some of these bills.

In some cases, it would cost more in attempts to collect than would be worth the trouble. Hospitals will often have assistance programs for people making a good-faith effort to pay, at a reduced amount of the bill. The rest is just a loss. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:39, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Price gouging" is code for "other ways of apportioning scarce resources, probably through lines and political connections". Shadowjams (talk) 07:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ah, the thorny thicket of medical pricing. Best expressed on a blog I was reading as "We pretend to bill for our services, and they [insurers, payors, etc] pretend to pay for them." To begin with: providers of all types have exorbitant "list prices", a small fraction of which is actually paid by large payors, i.e. insurers including Medicare, who have the bargaining clout to threaten to steer their large numbers of patients elsewhere if they dont get a huge break. Of course, the chances of collecting more from uninsured people than they collecty from the insured are not good.

This leads hospitals to bill ridiculous amounts like $10 for an aspirin, because/wherever they can; inpatient pharmacy appears on bills as a lump sum not line items, so cannot be disputed/bargained. This is, of course, the reaction to the hospitals being squeezed to death by payors on everything which is itemized, plus the sad fact that government reimbursement for care they are legally required to give to people who can't/don't pay is nowhere near what the hospital actually shells out for such care. Bottom line, hospitals are perpetually broke and will do what they can to scrape up a buck. (note that my experience is limited to non-profit hospitals). This applies only to the hospitals, not the doctors providing the care within, who are totally separate billing entities. This also does include dunning people who are too poor to have insurance (as distinct from just deciding not to), are not insured by their employer, and nevertheless have something like a house which can be seized. Aside from the arguably just instances of such, there are also plenty of instances of extortive interest rates, often leading to enormous bills for somebody who didn't even know they owed anything until much later; "going where the money is", i.e. ignoring the person who actually incurs the debt in favor of pursuing an estranged spouse or similar even when said person is not only not ethically, but not even legally obliged to cover the bills; and plenty of just chasing the entirely wrong person, etc. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Again, this is arguably as much from a sense of self-preservation and reaction to being forced to provide uncompensated care as any free-floating greed, and the kind of thing universal insurance, of any kind, is designed to eliminate. Gzuckier (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

trying to understand international politics

excuse me if this is a naive question but i was wondering. are arab shahs kings etc automatically targets for america when they travel? sorry if this is offensive to anyone i was just wondering about this international situation. if you need to reply to correct some basic misunderstanding or link to an article i am happy to read anything, thank you. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 14:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shah is a Persian/Iranian title. Iran is not an Arab country. Many Arab countries (and many non-Arab countries with Muslim majorities) are US allies - e.g. Saudi-Arabia and Kuweit. Many others have reasonably friendly relations with the US. So no, Arab leaders are not automatic targets for the US (much less "america"). In general, states are no supposed to target civilians at all. Sanctions are sometimes imposed that limit travel to certain countries, but there is no international legal basis for attacking civilians. Moreover, it's generally illegal to perform military or police action in a foreign state without the local government's consent, unless in a declared state of war. This is sometimes violated, but still widely frowned upon. The major reason for that is that states are sovereign, and need to keep a reasonable protocol to talk to each other to avoid escalation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) see also United Arab Emirates–United States relations. As Stephan said, lots of Arab countries have good relations with the US. IBE (talk) 15:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was confused, I thought for example that any high-level arabs would be killed on sight due to the war on terror. i didn't think america had arab allies though i guess i should have thought of it. sorry if i offended anyone - you can close this question if you want as my question has been asnwered. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 'War on Terror' is not a war on Arabs generally, or on any Arab state. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only Arab leader I can see possibly being targeted right now is Syria's Bashar al-Assad, as this might bring the Syrian civil war to an end. However, due to the unpredictable aftermath, I doubt if even this course of action has been seriously considered. StuRat (talk) 23:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Arthur I, Duke of Brittany

Was there any political motive in naming Arthur I, Duke of Brittany after the king of Camelot? Henry VII named his son and heir Arthur because the Tudor's were Wesh and had he reign it would fulfil the Arthurian legend. Bur Arthur wasnt in line since his uncle Richard was still alive. And were there any royals before the duke of Brittany named Arthur? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Emperor's New Spy (talk • contribs)

Broadly, yes, Arthur I's name did have political connotations - although there are only a limited number of studies in this area. The Arthurian legends were new and very popular during the late 12th century. Henry II, Arthur's grandfather, was the patron of a number of collections of Arthurian stories, and was also involved - according to the chroniclers - in the "discovery" of the legendary Arthur's tomb at Glastonbury, as well as arguing that the legendary Arthur was the ruler of Ireland, which Henry also conquered/reclaimed.

Geoffrey's relationship with Henry was sometimes difficult, and he seems to have used the Arthurian mythos to bolster his own rule in the Duchy. The young 12th century Arthur was born after Geoffrey's death, and the chronicler Geoffrey of Monmouth suggests that there was something of a dispute over the naming of the child - Henry II apparently wanting him to be called Henry, and the local Breton nobility preferring Arthur. The naming of Geoffrey's child in this way would have had resonances of glory, future success and a stronger Duchy. Richard I, who declared Arthur his heir when he went on crusade, was also interested in the legends, and his nomination of Arthur as his heir would probably have added to the political atmospherics. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)This was in the early days of the popularity of the Arthurian legend with the ruling class of England. It was really dredged out of obscurity by Geoffrey of Monmouth, whose book, Historia Regum Britanniae was written in 1131. Although the book started with Brutus of Troy and told mythical stories about all the supposed British kings until they were finally overwhelmed by the Saxons, King Arthur was the star of the book, It tells how he conquered most of Europe and was laying siege to Rome when his empire suddenly collapsed due to treachery at home. Most of the story's early success was that it showed the Saxons as treacherous usurpers, who were beaten by Arthur in a series of battles. Geoffrey was creating "...an ahistorical continuity of rule, from the kingdom of Arthur to the kingdom of Henry, thus picturing the Anglo-Saxons as the true interlopers."[7] If there is a political pretext, that's where my money is. Alansplodge (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the Arthurian legends were of especial importance in Brittany. The Bretons saw themselves as the true descendents of Arthur. Gildas, one of the main saints of Brittany, refers to the Battle of Badon having occurred in the year he was born (calling the English a "rascally crew"). The relation of continental versions of Arthurian lore to oral Breton traditions is not fully known. It's quite possible there was a strong local identification with Arthur linked to anti-English (Anglo-Saxon) sentiment which merged with the revival promoted by Geoffrey, who was certainly trying to affirm a Welsh (Brythonic/Briton/Breton) allance with the Normans to marginalise the interloping English. Paul B (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. By this time, Henry II had ensured that Arthur had more Plantaganet blood than Breton, see Dukes of Brittany, and probably reinforcing his Breton heritage would have been an advantage. BTW, Gildas was a Briton rather than a Breton, but the two nations shared a common language and heritage. Alansplodge (talk) 01:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Briton' and 'Breton' were the same thing in his lifetime. Indeed there may even have been an idea at least of common rulership over Brythonic territory. He was born in Britain but died in Brittany. He is "one of the main saints of Brittany" because he lived and died in Brittany and is identified with Brittany by Bretons. There are numerous shrines to him there and places named after him. The statue depicted at the top of our page on him is in Brittany. Ask a Breton who Gildas is, and they'll have at least heard of him. Ask a Briton and they'll say "who?". Paul B (talk) 04:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, I wasn't aware of the Breton connection. A note in our article says that "some scholars, most notably Frank Reno, think that Gildas of Britain and Gildas of Rhuys were distinct personages." Alansplodge (talk) 14:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Aurell's chapter in "Henry II: New Interpretations" is good if you've got access to it. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why does my country execute three prisoners at the same time?

Always, when here are executions, there are three hanged. Why?. It's Japan. Kotjap (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why not 4. Four is sometimes pronounced shi in Japanese, which is also the word for death. OsmanRF34 (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does the execution facility have room for only 3 ? If so, then they might choose to execute 3 at once, figuring this will reduce the publicity over 3 separate executions. StuRat (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to Capital_punishment_in_Japan#Execution: the OP's assumption is not true. They tend to execute people together, for whatever reason, but that can be one, two, three or four. It just happen that three at a time was more common. OsmanRF34 (talk) 23:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]