Humanities desk
< January 16	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 18 >

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.

January 17[edit]

Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky[edit]

They are possibly the greatest writers of the past few centuries, but did they knew each other and what did they think of each other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.244.145.186 (talk) 04:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard this superlative applied to Tolstoy once too often lately and I have to object. What exactly is the point of declaring him to be the greatest author? Does that make his books twice as enjoyable to read? Shall we dispense with lesser authors entirely? Really, it strikes me as folly to talk of the best anything. If you liked reading him, well that's super. Let's just leave it at that though. Vranak (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please either answer the question, or don't. OPs are allowed opinions - we aren't! --Tango (talk) 05:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not fully understand this desire to keep the desk as robotic as possible. Vranak (talk) 06:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Nobody wants it to be robotic. But you seem to be deliberately derailing a question before any kind of useful answer was given. That is disruptive and inappropriate. --Mr.98 (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologize, though my comment does not prohibit anyone else from giving their answer. The question is not really derailed. Vranak (talk) 01:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Vranak, the OP never declared Tolstoy to be the greatest author. Possibly people who hold that opinion are not as fanatical as you may suppose. Definitely your mocking questions are rude and unfit responses. IMHO the OP uses the word possibly responsibly as a qualifier when reporting an opinion without demanding that anyone share it. The OP is not responsible for whatever you have heard lately. For some reason you felt compelled to rant "it strikes me as folly to talk of the best anything" and after having thereby called the OP's post "folly" you ask us to "leave it at that". No to that. I agree with Mr.98. I suggest you do the same. That would be better than offering an uncertain apology (to whom? for what?). Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Cuddly I was in no way mocking the original poster -- my questions were in earnest. You seem to have inferred a poor attitude where none exists. It's ok though. :) Vranak (talk) 19:39, 21 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Forgetting the OP's debatable editorial comment, the rest of it seems to be a couple of reasonable questions. Might take some research, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:22, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And in the Dostoyevsky article, under "Works and influence", it has some discussion about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dostoyevski thought Tolstoy was the greatest writer of his day, or at least the greatest Russian, and at any rate thought himself beneath his very great compatriot. I would have to disagree, though I have only read one of Dostoyevski's novels, and none of Tolstoy's (I couldn't get through Anna Karenina) It's been emotional (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Iqbal poem[edit]

I am looking for a poem by Muhammad Iqbal. All I know about it is that it was one of his last poems and contains the verse: "Your prayer is that your destiny be changed; my prayer is that you yourself be changed." I do not know if the poem was in Persian or Urdu. If the poem is in Persian I would prefer an English translation and if the poem is in Urdu the original version. Does someone know where I could find it? Thanks-Shahab (talk) 06:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This may be it in Urdu here (see the last two lines). --Cam (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Henry O Studley obituary in the Quincy Patriot-Ledger[edit]

I am looking for a way to get access to the obituary referenced in the Henry O Studley article. The Patriot Ledger website doesn't seem to grant access to old articles (ca. 1925). Is my only option to drive to a library in the area? Surely someone must have access to this information.

Does anyone know of a good source for this sort of information? Is there an obituary archive somewhere on the web? I have tried google searching, but always just end up re-reading the text written by myself and my fellow wikipedia editors.

Any info would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, CoolMike (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, nothing new - I'm also caught in the Wiki-loop but you might try a personal email to the Patriot Ledger, addressed to the proprietor for forwarding to the archivist. These might well be one and the same person but most archivists respond very positively to such inquiries - leastways, they've done so for me. Good luck with it. Haploidavey (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the obituary you are looking for, but it does contain some more biographical information for the article. (Abbie E., born in Quincy, February 14, 1844, married Henry O. Studley.) I hope this helps JW..[ T..C ] 19:19, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. I will look into that biographical reference. Will try contacting local libraries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolMike (talk • contribs) 23:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about "counterfeits"[edit]

soapboxing by banned user

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is soapboxing by a banned user, please don't respond further. I've left the third question which is under a seperate subheading as the OP for that one is I'm pretty sure a different user Nil Einne (talk) 15:31, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

allowing counterfeit products and services to be listed[edit]

I have two somewhat unrelated questions about counterfeiting, the second about an extension of the term's application, so I'll ask only the first one now. This is a general question about logical thinking and not a legal question or a question about the law.

There appears to be no deadline for the time when printed money is determined to be counterfeit and when that money is acquired. In other words counterfeit is a permanent condition. However, while counterfeit products and services deemed counterfeit by the manufacturer may be deemed counterfeit at any time certain purchase protection plans do not recognize the manufacture's unlimited designation period but set a limit on protection of purchase to include a counterfeit item, even if they are a subsidiary of the advertising agency that claims they do not allow counterfeit products of services to be listed and sold, without rendering such claim to be false? 171.100.14.125 (talk) 18:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is, what? Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does an advertising agency make a false claim that it does not list or allow items which are counterfeit to be sold if it allows an item designated to be counterfeit by the manufacturer past the deadline of the agency's subsidiary buyer protection plan to be unprotected against such listing and sale? 171.100.14.125 (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly 71.100.1.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been asking essentially the same question all month, and is deaf to the many "we're not your lawyer" replies he's got. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even so it makes no sense why you refuse to answer the question unless you are working for said agency and/or its subsidiary. 171.100.14.125 (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reference desk rules are clear; they're written at the top. It says "The reference desk does not answer (and will probably remove) requests for medical or legal advice." You've been told this repeatedly. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:04, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And 71.100.3.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 19:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

...kind of obvious that you have an alternative motive. 171.100.14.125 (talk) 19:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And again this is not a legal question but a logical question about logical thinking unrelated to the law. 171.100.14.125 (talk) 19:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least 3 questions here that are basically the same and are basically bait for an argument. Should we zap them all? Or is the talk page discussion on these things "just talk"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll negate any chance of an argument by stating that from this point that I am satisfied that the advertisers claim of not listing or selling counterfeit products or services is invalidated by its subsidiary's buyer protection plan not covering the time in which the product or service can be found to be counterfeit by the manufacturer. 171.100.14.125 (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

counterfeiting genes[edit]

It seems to me that God or Nature created not only every gene and the nucleotides of which they are made God or Nature also created the molecular compounds of which the nucleotides are made as well as the atoms of each molecule and the particles of which each atom are made as well as the forces which bind them. Thus if when man alters anything God or Nature has created does God or Nature or other men have a right to claim that those altered components are counterfeit? 171.100.14.125 (talk) 18:52, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight. You're asking whether God has a right to claim something? Or whether Nature has a right to claim something? Just think about your question a little longer. That's all I'll say.

As for other men, do they have a right to claim that those altered components are counterfeit? Well, I suppose people can claim any damn thing they like, no matter how absurd it is. But really, did you ever refuse to eat a meal on the basis it was "counterfeit", because the order of the molecules had been unacceptably altered from the way the ingredients occurred in nature? No, I thought not. Humans for some baffling reason have not been given the power to do things without disturbing the order of molecules. A terrible oversight, that. I must talk to God about it. Or Mother Nature. People in irreversible comas are still breathing, and disturbing the order of the molecules in the air they breathe. Is the CO2 they exhale "counterfeit"? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:21, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

God does have Earth bound representative in the form of churches and as for nature you, yourself probably are subject to some type of natural drive. As for refusing to eat a meal, yes many people have refused to eat at Toco Bell for instance when it was discovered that GM corn meal designated only for animals had contaminated their Toco Bell products, specifically to avoid comma and death, caused by such products. 171.100.14.125 (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter what it is. Eat anything, and what comes out the other end? Is it real shit, or just counterfeit shit? Whatever it is, the molecules are certainly not in the same order as they went in. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead people who die from allergic reaction to counterfeit genes can't eat as I recollect. 171.100.14.125 (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me more about this "Toco Bell" situation. I've eaten at Taco Bell, but fortunately never at "Toco Bell". Which reminds me - just by cooking something, you're altering its nature. And by domesticating plants and animals, you're doing artificial (i.e. not natural) selection. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These things are approved in the Bible are they not? ...whereas GM, well I don't see it and yes Toco is a misspelling. 171.100.14.125 (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible is silent on genetics, because no one knew anything about it until roughly the late 19th century. Similarly silent on things like microbes, which no one knew about until the invention of the microscope. Man does not have dominion over the earth, microbes do. But the authors of the Old Testament had no way to know that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How synchronistic that Glen Bell, the founder of Taco Bell, died yesterday. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the OP is obviously just trying to foment an argument. Do we take this to the talk page, or zap it here and now? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC) ?[reply]

Since my position is neutral and at worst Devil's, God's or Nature's advocate now I'm wondering about the legitimacy of your motives. 171.100.14.125 (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is not neutral. It starts with a questionable premise, and proceeds to ask leading questions based on that premise. Everything man has ever invented started out "made by God", or by "Nature", or whatever metaphor you want to use. Man makes tools. Man changes his environment to suit him. It's man's own nature to do that. Tinkering with genetics, be it through conventional breeding or laboratory-based gene modification, either way it's changing something "made by God". And people and companies who invent things have the legal right to some benefit from those inventions. If they didn't, no one would ever invent anything. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Including counterfeiters? 171.100.14.125 (talk) 22:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, counterfeiters do not invent anything. They simply copy existing artifacts, and palm them off as originals in order to make a profit. I'm sure you know this. -- 202.142.129.66 (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's pretend you are asking about how this would be treated under U.S. patent law, in relation to the other question about gene patenting.

U.S. patent law does not let you patent things that are made in nature. You cannot patent an walnut that you find. However, you can patent methods of using walnuts, and if you genetically engineer a walnut to be different than it appears naturally, you can patent that. In fact, if you come up with a new cultivar of walnut, you can also get a quasi-patent protection on that as well, even though in such a case you are really just waiting for a "natural" mutation to show up that you can exploit.

So this is all pretty standard ground... except when you get to gene patenting. As discussed above, this gets into weird territory, because you can patent genes that are "natural" if you discover them and what their function is. Or maybe you can't patent them... the courts have not yet ruled. This gets into a fine legal and ethical distinction—is finding out the purpose of a gene like finding an walnut? Or is it like coming up with a method for using walnuts? Or... what? That's one of the host intellectual property law questions of the day... in a nutshell (cue rim shot). To be sure, in general, intellectual property requires that a human being exert some kind of creative agency — something created "by nature" normally wouldn't be considered a candidate for exclusive intellectual property ownership (you can own the walnut, but not all rights to all walnuts). However there are exceptions and fine lines. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm not asking a question here about gene patenting because logic and law are not one in the same. While law can be completely unlogical, logic is used to show that. The purpose here is not to do either but to clarify whether or not there is consistency of term application. The purpose here is to explore and determine whether counterfeit money for instance and counterfeit genes are consistent in use of the term. In other words do they fit the same criteria for the meaning of the word counterfeit? 171.100.14.125 (talk) 23:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your basic premise is flawed. A counterfeit is something that is presented as one thing but is actually something else. A counterfeit bill, for example. The only way a gene could be "counterfeit" is if it's not really a gene. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are misapplying my use of the term in reference to the control context of money. If I say counterfeit socks in the context of counterfeit money then I'm referring to the right to manufacture or sell the socks. Presenting the socks as gloves has nothing to do with the context I'm using. 171.100.14.125 (talk) 00:11, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restate what you mean by a "counterfeit" gene. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you are understanding what counterfeiting is all about. You manufacture something cheaply and pass it off as something valuable. What you're talking about is tampering. Anyway God may have created every little nucleotide but he also gave us the means to tinker with them. In his infinite wisdom surely God would not give us tools if He did not wish us to use them. Vranak (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most important (and most dangerous) tool God, Nature, etc., gave us was a Big Brain, which enables us to figure things out and invent things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of Galileo Galilei: "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forego their use." TomorrowTime (talk) 09:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ever hear of good versus evil?[edit]

Due to the premature archiving of the discussion on the meaning of counterfeit I was not able to get back in time to restate what I mean by counterfeit genes or to respond to the last few comments so I am posting it here.

Just because God has given man a big brain does not mean that he gave us one incapable of committing evil. Creating counterfeit genes, i.e., genes which produce an end product indistinguishable from the original except by extraordinary means follows the definition of counterfeit as it is applied to money, i.e., a gene created by man, not God.

171.100.14.125 (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a question, and so is inappropriate for the Reference Desk. Marnanel (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, as I expected! The purpose for premature archiving is to censor further comment undesired by the premature archiver! What lowly evil cowards counterfeit supporters are!171.100.14.125 (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, as I expected! The IP is a troll. I'm just not sure if it's a real troll, or a counterfeit troll. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No no, you don't understand, he's being oppressed. Come see the violence inherent in the system! TomorrowTime (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is counterfeit items a social construct[edit]

Consider this, a factory under licence by company X makes genuine widget Y. Then later the same factory using the same raw material makes unlicenced counterfeit widget Y. So does that mean that counterfeit items could be nothing more than a social construct? 139.130.1.226 (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an analogy. Is user 139.130.1.226 a construct of 171.100.14.125, or vice versa? Which is genuine, and which the counterfeit? Think about it. Haploidavey (talk) 21:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ISP's are on opposite sides of the globe, which doesn't prove anything. The original question started out making sense until the last sentence. What is that supposed to mean? Is he asking whether people and companies should have the right to rip other people and companies off? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. It seems to suggest that things which seem the same and have identical functions are not necessarily the same. Some are lawfully made and sold, others are not. The difference between them is a matter of law; and law is of course a social construct. OK, though I'm not sure at all why it's "nothing more" than that; perhaps it's an invitation to debate. I don't know whether the different IPs are different posters or not but their questions on legitimacy are essentially the same. That's why I invited the poster to "think about it". Haploidavey (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This question, like the other one, does indeed seem to be trying to start an argument, and as usual, the regulars may talk big about deleting frivolous stuff, but when push comes to shove, they won't do it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notion of counterfeiting not just could be, but always is, a social construct, and we don't need a contrived example to see that. Suppose that company X makes genuine widget Y, and company Z makes counterfeit widget Y. What's wrong with the widgets that company Z makes? They're actual widgets, so they're not fake in that respect. No, they're fake - counterfeit - because they pretend to be something that they are not, namely, genuine widget Y. Even if they are of equal or better quality than the original, they still play upon our credulity through their deception. John M Baker (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. 171.100.14.125 (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes of course the notion of 'counterfeit goods' is social construct. The question is, is it a construct that serves a useful purpose or is it just red tape. For a counterfeiter it's red tape. For everyone else it's a violation of social norms, decency, honorableness, you name it. Vranak (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea. How about making an honest living, OP: it does great things for your mental state. Or, if you don't, because you're telling your customers that something isn't what it is -- or you're conveniently omitting certain information (this is commonly known as "lying" or telling a "half-truth" at best), try not to rationalize it. That's your answer, it's the right one, and I believe you and I both known it. Any more questions about the legality or moral legitimacy of counterfeiting? Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of a "counterfeit" requires an idea of "veracity" in the first place. This is certainly a social construct. (Benjamin's The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction points this out wonderfully in a round-about way—why do we consider the "original" work of art to be more highly valued than the "copy", even if the two are identical? What are the implications for "art" in an age where perfect copies are possible?) But calling it a "social construct" does not mean it is unimportant—laws are, by definition, social constructs. Crime itself is a social construct. That doesn't make its consequences any less "real". Calling something a "social construct" does not really diminish its importance or strength, because human lives are, by the large, social constructs. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless that mechanical reproduction also duplicates the brush strokes in the painting, it's not an exact replica. There's more to a painting than the scene it's portraying. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin was referring to photography in particular. "Original" photographs created by an author are far more prized than the millions of derivative copies, for example, even though they can be physically indistinguishable. Theoretically a good forger could make paintings that were indistinguishable from originals, as well, yet we would value this considerably less, even if the artwork was completely identical. That's kind of what the article is about, in a sense—questioning what it is about authentic "originals" that holds all of their value. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The question is quite silly if it is aiming toward justifying counterfeiting. Counterfeiting is a social construct, but so is money, and so is the idea that producers of goods ought to be compensated. If you are going to try to justify counterfeiting by dismissing the idea as a "social construct", then all these other things would have to be dismissed, too, if you're going to be logically consistent. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death rates in prisons[edit]

What is the death rates for adult males serving a prison sentence in a UK prison, compared with the rate for adult males in the general population�81.109.63.4 (talk) 19:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As Myron Cohen mentioned in one of his stories, the death rate is "one to a person". :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The best I can find so far is a study from 2005 which looked at all prisoner deaths in England and Wales from 1978 - 1997. It's freely available to read here. It has the rather sad sentence "The mean age of death from all causes for male prisoners was 38.4 years (range 15–91, standard deviation = 14.7). For natural deaths, it was 47.5 years (range 16–91, 14.4)." But then it tries to adjust for the typical age of prisoners (they tend to be younger than the general population), and gives us these key points:

There is uncertainty over whether rates for natural causes of deaths in male prisoners differ from age-standardised general population data.
We investigated SMRs for natural deaths in male prisoners in England and Wales over 20 years.
For all natural deaths combined, SMRs were significantly lower in male prisoners.
For specific causes of death, SMRs were significantly increased in male prisoners for infectious diseases and respiratory pneumonia.
These findings highlight the need for the screening and effective treatment of infectious diseases in prisoners.

(Direct quote, emphasis mine. Note it only talks about deaths by natural causes) Whether the situation today is the same as it was over those 20 years, I cannot say. For example, piecing together various sources, it looks like the suicide rate in prisons in England and Wales has been increasing since the 1970s, whereas Scotland has managed to reduce it recently (particularly in younger prisoners). 86.178.229.168 (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More, this time with bonus hard numbers. The Office for National Statistics [1] kindly uploads quite a lot of statistics about the makeup of the population. For example, in 2008 the overall death rate for all males in England and Wales, per 1000 population, was 9.1, but this includes children. (Table 11, Main Tables section [2]) This is also not age standardised, which much of the data is. Lots of raw data there for you to calculate a more specific rate. I'm struggling to find raw data on deaths in UK prisons, and it's complicated by the split between "England and Wales" and "Scotland" (not to mention Northern Ireland): I doubt you'll easily find the data for UK prisons (or even the UK population) as a whole.

Ah, this paper says "This study explores the mortality rates of a six-year cohort of male probationers (1990-1995) with males in the general population. Male offenders (aged 17-54) had double the death rate, five times the 'external death' rate and nine times the suicide rate of the general population." (emphasis mine) But that's men on probation, not in prison. This article says "Prisoners and community offenders were found to be reasonably similar in vulnerability to suicide/self-inflicted death; however, the risk of accidental death and homicide was greater for community offenders, and drugs and alcohol played a bigger part in their deaths." looking at a similar time period: this paper doesn't seem to be freely available anywhere, so I can't skim it for numbers.

It's quite difficult to find the basic numbers: lots of sources want to tell me about the suicide rate (much higher in prison) or drugs-related deaths. 86.178.229.168 (talk) 22:32, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's stats on self-inflicted deaths per annum in England & Wales prisons. (Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate prison services from England & Wales.) --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]