Humanities desk
< March 15	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 17 >

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.

March 16[edit]

For profit prisons[edit]

Read something about private prisons so it made me wonder how countries that have a for profit prison system compare to countries that do not(similar in GDP per capita perhaps) with inmate numbers per capita, recidivism rate and so on? More generaly, which countries even run for profit prison systems and to which extent? Any links to further reading would be apreciated. 91.49.67.228 (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, there are only 5 countries with them: UK, US, Australia, France and Canada. So, I'd say that in terms of GDP, these are well over the world average. In terms of inmate per capita, the US is also quite on the top, if not number 1.

You could research further at Private prison. Specially the list of references at the bottom can be helpful. --Hofhof (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See, in particular, prison–industrial complex and kids for cash scandal. Per Hofhof's point above, see here for a list of countries by incarceration rate (the US is #2, after Seychelles, which has the population of a small city, so is prone to skewing). Matt Deres (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How about the recidivism rate? And by the way, Canada has no private prisons anymore, they only tried it out on a very limited scale and did not extend contracts. France has a hybrid system in which only food, laundry and so on is done by private companies. Hence why i also asked about the extent of the implementation. The prison industrial complex and kids for cash articles look interesting but at are totally US focused sadly. But cheers anyway for some links. I am curious if there is a noticable difference, or how large a difference, between prison population and recidivism rate between comparable nations using different systems. 91.49.67.228 (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See List of countries by incarceration rate. Even in the country with the highest incarceration rate its far below 1% of the population, so it does not make a economic difference, because even when privatized and everyone put to work efficiently that will on the one hand certainly always be low income work and on the other that will always steals work opportunity from the free people. If a private prison can make a profit with their "workers" so could some other private company instead. So for the economy of a country it does not even make sense no matter how well politicians present the numbers and naively claim that the prisons allegedly contribute to the state because its effectively contradicted by more unemployment. Its a zero-sum calculation anyway as long as there is some unemployment. --Kharon (talk) 05:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well that list is wrong as NZ also has one privately operated prison [1]. (Formerly two.) Our articles are often incomplete so you should always take care when relying on them. Unfortunately our List of prisons in New Zealand isn't very good although Department of Corrections (New Zealand) does mention it. The new government is opposed to prison prisons, but at this stage have indicated they will continue with the contract which lasts until 2040 (it was built by the operator rather than management being transferred on an existing prison) on the one private prison [2]. Nil Einne (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I've updated the private prison article to at least link to the info on NZ, and the NZ articles to make it clear the prison is operating. Nil Einne (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Results have been mixed in the UK: Momentum stalls on UK’s private prisons - Competition helps improve jail standards but early advantages start to fade. Alansplodge (talk) 10:04, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems clear i will not get the answers i was looking for. I got someone linking to the most obvious, and incomplete, Wikipedia article without at hint it could be incomplete, then summing it up wrongly because they have not read it. Some totally unrelated answers to economics etc. Thanks everyone nontheless, but i doubt i will ask questions here again as it was not helpful at all. And sorry about whining now, haha. At least there was some interesting information, eventhough hardly anything directly related to my question. Have a good day everyone and feel free to close this, it was just not helpful.91.49.67.228 (talk) 15:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We do this in our spare time by the way. See also A Systematic Review of Criminal Recidivism Rates Worldwide. Alansplodge (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do of course realise that. But the first comment alone, just repeating what the table of content of one article said without any further look and then giving that as an answer was not very helpful. Especially as it was not correct as answered. Or telling me to go through some 100 references in the article to maybe find what i was looking for, while obviously better than nothing, was not that great either. Or not mentioning that the information in that article, or any other really, may be wrong, outdated or have information missing was not optimal either. I did not get what i was looking for so i said it was not very helpful asking that particular question here. Can't blame me for that just as i don't blame anyone for not being able to help me. It happens. But i will say thank you again for the references i have been given. Some of it was quite interesting. 91.49.65.161 (talk) 00:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you simply don't get the concept of what a reference desk is. Hofhof (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you did not just repeat the table of content of the article without reading it and gave me an incorrect answer? Sure thing then, i am the idiot. Got it. I was expecting actual references like i got from Alansplodge or NilEinne. But whatever, Sorry if i offended you by criticizing the way you answered this. Some people have a hard time dealing with such things so i am sorry. 91.49.65.161 (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Private companies are not required to openly report like state-run institutions. Even so called public-private partnerships are usually set up to be very secretive about their performances and internals so the benefit part of your question can be assumed at best. You are in fact searching for free businesses secrets. You would even get in big trouble if you would release such data! So dont be disappointed or angry please. Be assured everyone is trying their best here and there may be reasons outside of everyones sight why your inquiry and our attempts to answer are bound to fail from start. --Kharon (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not angry at all, just slightly annoyed by one particular answer and their response to my mentioning that. Perhaps i could have done that more elegantly but what's done is done. It happens, but sorry nontheless. But anyway, how can recidivism rates and prison population be secret information held by private companies? I assumed that would be public information and gathered through public record keeping and statistical analysis of said records. Just like crime rates for murder, car theft etc. After all, the private companies don't sentence individuals for crimes commited. So that data would not come out of private companies but the legal system. I assumed that was in publicly availible data. Now if i asked for revenue of for profit prisons or the like, sure i would understand your argument here. But even then, some american companies, for example, are publicly traded so one would have that information somewhat availible as well, or am i mistaken there? If i am wrong in my thinking, so be it. But i am sorry to say, i don't buy the argument that you could not help me because i was looking for business secrets. Especially because Alansplodge was so kind to provide a reference about recidivism rates and there even being a Wikipedia article on prison populations per country. That sort of answered my question after comparing the different things, taking some notes etc. I had just hoped there would be a comprehensive comparison or the like that i was not able to find. Not being able to help is totally fine of course. 91.49.69.67 (talk) 03:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wine competition[edit]

I've heard that French wines tend to do much better in wine competitions where the judges know the origins of the wine. And in contrast, wines from other regions such as California do much better when the tasting is blinded. I'm trying to find out to what extent this is true. Google turns up lots of results, but I'm having a hard time evaluating what is a reliable and authoritative source for an answer to this question. Any suggestions? Patti Axis (talk) 13:13, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a look at wine tasting and blind wine tasting (which really seems like it could be combined with the other article)? They seem to have pretty reasonable references to check out as well. Matt Deres (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did see wine tasting and it mentions this phenomenon, but doesn't have an external reference to support it. But I didn't realize that blind wine tasting existed too. I also see Wikipedia has another relevant article Judgment of Paris (wine). I'll check those out in detail now. Patti Axis (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Election results that are "too close to call"[edit]

I was reading about Pennsylvania's 18th congressional district special election, 2018. This got me wondering. Does Wikipedia have any articles about "really close" elections, decided by a handful of votes? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of close election results. Warofdreams talk 19:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! 32.209.55.38 (talk) 04:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HistoricalWitch hunt[edit]

Why concentrate on women? Why not a wizard hunt? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.158.28 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some witch hunts were not biased against women. "Especially at the margins of Europe, in Iceland, Finland, Estonia and Russia, the majority of those accused were male." Witch_trials_in_the_early_modern_period#Gender_conflict.--Hofhof (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However, as that very useful article explains, the majority of people accused of being witches were women, and it suggests possible reasons. Warofdreams talk 23:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm kinda amazed we don't have anything on the theory that it was to displace women in the brewing industry. Women in brewing barely mentions it in one line. The cauldron was to brew the beer in. The "broom" was a bundle of twigs that they had gathered ingredients from and tiee them to a stick, which they'd mount a wall to as a sign that they brewed. They'd take their beer to the market while wearing pointy hats to signal "hey, I sell beer." A few sources (not necessarily article-level RS): [3] [4] [5]. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another possibility is plain old tripping. Note that witch hunts had fairly little to do people alleging to have witnessed any supernatural performances -- in that era magic was widely believed in and the church did not oppose and often participated in benevolent "magic". 93.136.119.107 (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Witch hunts prey on the weak, which were (and continues to be) much more likely to be women. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elisa Montessori[edit]

Hi, I am drafting a biographical article in User:Alexmar983/sandbox. it's about an italian artist, named Elisa Montessori.

I have found many snippets of sources and I am quite sure that a contact at the Uffizi who I met last week at an edit-a-thon has a booklet about her. In the meantime I have found everything I could on line so far but it is very fragmented. It's enough to assemble a consistent wikipedia article of course, I think I have enough to prove that she is notable... you don't appear on newspapers and in museums collections for almost 50 years if you are nobody. There is more to add and refine, it's just that I don't know where I can get a very robust reference. While I am waiting for my contact to reply, I would like to find at least something peer-reviewed or on a very good source entirely about her, not a snippet or a pseudo-commercial catalogue. I am sure there are a lot of other citations of newspapers (unfortunately not open access, such as "Il Manifesto") and in one article by a University researcher of the 70s-80s I found a list of at circa 30 references from very specific Italian newspapaers or art and style magazines published in the past, which are very difficult to get.

I looked also in JSTOR and surprisingly I could not find anything there. I start to think that there is nothing about her in the academic publication in English, maybe in French. Before I start searching for the old magazines in Italy somewhere, could someone check in other non open access digitalized archives if this name appears? Maybe there is some platform very specific for art of which I know nothing about where there is some information.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a critique of her work here: [6]. 86.152.81.121 (talk) 14:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have that. I have everything that is on line. It's the other sources I am missing.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Question everything, Learn something, Answer nothing"[edit]

Where exactly does one find this alleged, very famous quote from Euripides' Rhesus? There is not a single appropriate reference to be found anywhere.--Converto (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, you're right. The earliest citation of this phrase in Google Books is dated 1999 from the California Debt Advisory Commission. Most curious. Alansplodge (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: First of all, thanks for posting! How did you find out? And does that mean, in fact, that this is really just one big hoax – despite being cited over and over again…?--Converto (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Converto - I pasted the quotation into the search bar in Google Books, in "quote marks" which brings up only that exact phrase, like this. I also tried it without the quote marks, but without finding anything useful. I also tried both searches in the main Google page, without any luck. If it really was a quote from a work by Euripides, not only would you expect to get a result from the original text itself, but also in other 18th, 19th and 20th century works, as our forebears set rather more store by the classics than we do today. A valuable tool is archive.org; it includes at least one English translation of Rhesus but a search of their texts failed to find anything like that quote. It seems to me that there are two possibilities; either it's a modern paraphrase of an actual quote that Google and archive.org are both somehow failing to pick up, or it was totally made up by some bloke on the internet - the 1999 date seems to support the latter hypothesis. Alansplodge (talk) 17:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If it derives from Rhesus, then authorship is disputed. It differs considerably from other surviving plays by Euripides, and debates over its authenticity have been raging since the Hellenistic period.

Also I suspect, the above quote is actually from Aristophanes, not Euripides. "Question+everything"+Euripides&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjw0d-yuPXZAhWlA5oKHRcaBK4Q6AEINTAD#v=onepage&q=%22Question%20everything%22%20Euripides&f=false Classics in Translation, Volume I: Greek Literature includes a translation of The Frogs (405 BC), where the ghosts of Aeschylus and Euripides are debating in the Underworld. :

"Euripides: ... By arming them with fine-edged rules and versicule contractors. To mark, see, understand and twist, make love and try inventions, Suspect and question everything." :Dimadick (talk) 08:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Dimadick: "versicule"???--Converto (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting thought (in this case the misattribution to Euripides would still be somehow understandable), but there's still nothing anywhere near that passage that I can see corresponding to the "learn" and "answer" parts of the alleged quotation. Seems it's really just another made-up pseudo-quote. Also, does anybody understand what the quotation is even supposed to mean? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It means something about doing the Twist (dance) and Making Love and trying Inventions. Bus stop (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean the passage from the Frogs, I meant the one in the title of this section. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of a verbal Rorschach test it means approach assumptions skeptically, adjust your own assumptions, don't make pronouncements. Bus stop (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interposed question (once more): What is versicule supposed to mean?--Converto (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently nobody knows the answer and I've already used up my quota of wiseass remarks. Bus stop (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having to do with a short verse or poem. Wikipedia has a sister-project called Wiktionary that serves as a dictionary anyone can edit. When I entered versicule into Google, I got sent here, which led me to here. Matt Deres (talk) 01:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]