Miscellaneous desk
< April 9	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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 10[edit]

Cheating in sumo[edit]

A couple of months ago I was watching Freakonomics and it mentioned cheating in sumo. Our article on sumo mentions yaocho, which appears to be related to fixing matches; however, Freakonomics mentioned a different sort of cheating that wasn't based on a predetermined outcome of the match. A wrestler who wouldn't be hurt by a loss would allow a wrestler who would benefit from a win to beat him. Does anyone know the term for this and if this is a concept seen only in sumo, or if it is seen in other areas of Japanese culture as well? Ryan Vesey 02:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It happens all the time in sports. Teams that have locked up a playoff berth regularly rest their key players, especially if they can't move up or down the seedings. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's called "taking a dive". Match_fixing#Japan seems to have more details on the Japanese culture aspect of this type of fixing.--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a dive isn't exactly the same thing. It happens in boxing, where a loss does hurt the diver, but he or she receives a $ecret benefit. Wikipedia:WHAAOE: Resting the starters. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not doing your best to win might be unsporting, but if it is done simply to give your own team an advantage in the next match rather than to intentionally let the other team win then it isn't match fixing. --Tango (talk) 11:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Japanese baseball, at one time, was dominated by this type of mentality. For example, it was considered honorable to let the home team win. However, calling it "cheating" seems a bit off. For comparison, in the WWE, those wrestlers might agree who will win in advance, but is that really cheating ? Everyone knows it's fake, so it's more like a performance than an actual competition. Calling that "cheating" is a bit like calling it cheating when Rocky wins his bouts in the movies, by following the script. Or, to compare it with another type of cheating, are a couple in an open marriage both guilty of cheating ? I don't think so, as cheating requires deception. StuRat (talk) 04:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it's a question of ranking and the privilege of competing at the top level in the next tournament. Yes, it is cheating, keeping wrestlers who would likely be relegated if the final matches were honest at the top rank.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an actor playing a character destined to die off in the first act might also wish he could play a part that emerges victorious, does that make it "cheating" that he's not allowed to ? StuRat (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Priority draft pick#Tanking. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 12:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

also sandbagging Gzuckier (talk) 15:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

also

On July 4, 1984, Petty won his 200th (and what would turn to be his final victory) race at the Firecracker 400 at Daytona International Speedway. The race was memorable: On lap 158, Doug Heveron crashed, bringing out the yellow caution flag, essentially turning lap 158 into the last lap as the two drivers battled back to the start-finish line. Petty and Cale Yarborough diced it out on that lap, with Yarborough drafting and taking an early lead before Petty managed to cross the start/finish line only a fender-length ahead. ... President Ronald Reagan was in attendance, the first sitting president to attend a NASCAR race. Reagan celebrated the milestone with Petty and his family in victory lane. Richard_Petty#The_Twilight_Years

Let's see: July 4, Ronald Reagan in the stands, the most beloved NASCAR driver in the twilight of his career, miraculously manages to just batrely beat a faster car to the line, his 200th win... (I'm not complaining, it was fun to watch) Gzuckier (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The American Health Care System[edit]

Firstly, I understand I must ask a question, so here, goes - why does America punish its own economy by making it so ridiculously expensive and prohibitive for non-US tourists to go there?

My wife and I are British and have travelled across the world (including America on several occasions) and have had a fantastic experience of meeting other cultures, religions, races, languages etc., etc., since we retired from professional positions in UK Government and Local Government. We are now 66 and 63 respectively and have admitted to many Health Insurance Companies that we have been diagnosed with Osteo and Rheumatoid Arthritis coupled with mild Asthma (my wife - all controlled by medication and frequent medical consultations); whilst I have been medically managed for 25 years for raised Blood Pressure and raised Cholesterol levels (nothing terminal indicated).

We have recently travelled to, New Jersey, San Diego, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Cuba, Alaska, Canada and New York. We are frequent travellers to Spain, Italy, Greece, France and clearly, London, Edinburgh and the rest of the UK. We have visited Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany, Austria, and Greece, not forgetting Nice in France - and Monte Carlo. Boasting???? NO !!!

Today, I have cancelled a very expensive cruise from Miami in Florida to Los Angeles via a transit through the Panama Canal which was to cost about £10,000 or say $13,000 USD. Why? Because the Insurance Companies I checked with (5 in all) quoted me in the region of $1300 USD for Travel Health Insurance.

A European 2 week holiday quotation was for £69 - say $80 USD. And what infuriates me is that I have many US friends who frequently visit myself and my wife in Scotland who NEVER carry Health Insurance on the basis that in the UK, they can rely on FREE health care at the point of delivery, which I pay through my taxes.

Guess what?? I have cancelled my holiday with the American Cruise Line AND i HAVE DECIDED INSTEAD never to visit America again. Thankyou Mr. Obama for saving me over $13,000 that I shall instead invest in European Based Holidays. 77.99.122.161 (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you have a question? AlexTiefling (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question is in the first line. I'm not sure about the premise, or if Obama has really had any effect on the price a European pays a European agency for health insurance while traveling in the US. But conceivably a charitable contributor could track down some statistics on healthcare prices and tourism that would help the OP. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An approximately 10% surcharge for health insurance on those with health problems doesn't, on the face, seem unreasonable to me. Presumably, if you were both healthy, the cost would be far less. Also note that, in your system, you are still paying that cost, it's just buried in everyone's (higher) taxes, so it's less apparent. I'm not a fan of the US health care system, but this doesn't seem like the worst problem it creates. I think your objection stems from the fact that "that's not how it's done here". You will find, the farther you travel from home, the more different the cultures will be, including things like health care. So, your objection could be characterized as xenophobia. StuRat (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

who's resonsible for health insurance on a cruise? I know Canadians in the US are covered for accidental health insurance on the Canadian plan for like two weeks at no extra charge, but that involves actually getting coverage in a US hospital; if you get appendicitis or something on a cruise in the middle of the Panama Canal, I wonder where you would be treated and who would pay/be paid? That would affect the rates for the coverage for that period of time. Recent (and less recent) news certainly doesn't reassure people regarding not having health problems on cruise vessels. But i think the OP's point in the form of a question still stands: visitors from foreign countries to the US really need to ensure that they are adequately covered for medical costs for the duration of their visit or they could be very unpleasantly surprised, and it definitely does have a negative effect on tourism from other countries (for instance, my aforementioned Canadians who need to time every visit around their two week coverage, and any otherwise attractive events falling outside that window are written off) Gzuckier (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Economically, you are arguing for subsidized health care for tourists. From a national perspective, that is simply a subsidy for the tourism industry. The United States has chosen not to extend that subsidy, while some other countries have made a different decision. Of course, it is easier to provide tourists with subsidized health care in a single-payer system, but that is not the only consideration. Obamacare is really a relatively minor change to American health care and does not affect tourist health care expenses in any meaningful way, so you are wrong to blame President Obama.

You may also be wrong in directing your ire at the American health care system. It sounds like your travel would have been almost entirely in international waters. While the cruise line itself may be American, the cruise ship itself would almost certainly have flown the flag of some other nation, and the health care provided on board would not have been subject to U.S. law. John M Baker (talk) 16:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(I'm a Brit - living in Texas - just so you understand my perspective) Your health insurance cost is actually rather reasonable by US standards. I pay something close to $600 per month to insure my ex-wife with the Aetna HMO through my companies' healthcare plan - and that's without pre-existing conditions - and she has to pay a "co-pay" for every treatment and there are limits on the annual amount that she's covered for. Optical and dental coverage isn't covered. There are two of you - so at $1300 (which probably includes dental coverage) it looks like you're getting regular US corporate health insurance rates...despite the likelyhood that if you were taken ill, that you'd need a helicopter ride from the cruise ship and possibly costly emergency repatriation to the UK - and you probably have emergency dental coverage. It probably has nothing to do with the health issues you have - that's just what normal, healthy Americans have to bear if they want medical care when they need it. With your pre-conditions, health insurance here would be unaffordable to all but those rich enough to not need insurance in the first place. So, believe it or not, you're getting a good deal!

So this question has nothing to do with tourism. It boils down to the much more general one of "Why is health insurance so expensive for *EVERYONE* in the USA?" - and there are lots of reasons for that. One big one is the litigation-happy US populace...doctors have to spend an absolute fortune on their insurance that pays their legal costs in the event that they get sued...another is the tight restrictions on where medication can be purchased...a third is that the standards of healthcare are actually significantly better than the NHS back in the UK. (Remember - I'm British - I've seen both systems in action!) Here in Texas, I don't ever wait in line at the doctor's office - hospital rooms are very pleasant places to be with good food - if I need any kind of major work done, it gets done immediately - with no waiting lists. That quality of service comes at a steep price - and Americans pay through the nose for it.

Don't get me wrong - I strongly believe that free, universal, basic healthcare, (albeit at a lower quality level than we currently have at $600/month) is something that all civilized countries should have. It's appalling that the US doesn't have this yet. But it's a serious mistake to blame President Obama - he's tried harder than any recent president to reform the US health care system - and has actually managed to enact some serious changes that are now gradually rolling in (not everyone would describe them as "improvements" - but I certainly would). The people you have to blame are his opposition in the Republican party who are (essentially) against free universal healthcare of the kind we have in the UK.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do rants inviting debate--although the xenophobia link was a helpful reference. μηδείς (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Gzuckier: I'd really like to see a citation for your comment "I know Canadians in the US are covered for accidental health insurance on the Canadian plan for like two weeks at no extra charge, but that involves actually getting coverage in a US hospital". To the best of my knowledge it is wrong, and may be dangerously so, at least in the case of the province of Ontario. (Health care is a provincial matter in Canada; there is no such thing as a "Canadian plan".) You are covered for any length of time but, and this is the critical bit, only for costs as specified on the Canadian schedules, which are sometimes "house losing" amounts less than equivalent American costs. I would never go to the US without travel insurance. Bielle (talk) 17:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When British people get holiday travel insurance in Europe, the cost is partly determined by the fact that there are already subsidies for EU people in the system. If you were to travel without any extra health insurance you would pay whatever a local resident pays (with basic social security coverage). These are not primarily subsidies for tourists but for EU residents, who are allowed to move between countries of the EU with minimum restriction. The aim of the mutual health care arrangements of the EU is to permit free movement of labour, not to promote tourism. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The system also covers a few European countries outside the EU such as Norway and Switzerland, with whom we have reciprocal agreements. See EHIC - European Health Insurance Card. Alansplodge (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Past info on PTSD[edit]

I was just going through some articles on line about PTSD and really couldn't find any thing about Viet Nam Vets. You see I was in the Navy for 21 years and had two tours in Viet Nam. And it just came to me that there is no,or at least none that I can find, relating to Viet Nam Vets with PTSD.

I don't know if it is History or what, but it seems to me with all of the men that went to Viet Nam had little or no reports what so ever of PTSD. And now since the Golf Wars have been going on we have had so many cases of PTSD I have to wonder as to what kind of people we have going over there as to weather these men and women are really fit to support our country in time of war.

If you can find any sites that may have any information on this, please let me know. Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozzie5562 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that you couldn't find any information online -- there is a lot available. PTSD is considered to have been very common in Vietnam vets -- in fact the term posttraumatic stress disorder was coined in the 1970s with them specifically in mind. See this page and many others you can find by Googling for "Vietnam PTSD" for more information. Looie496 (talk) 16:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Have you looked at Posttraumatic_stress_disorder, especially the section Modern recognition in military settings? The term PTSD was only coined in the mid-seventies, mainly because of Vietnam vets. Before that it was called shell shock, or "battle fatigue" or the like. Rojomoke (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

of course in those days there were widely accepted cures which are less widely accepted as therapeutically effective these days Gzuckier (talk) 16:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem is that the term "PTSD" is relatively new - it used to be called by various other names - "Shell shock" being very common. "Battle fatigue" or "Combat fatigue" being another term, "Combat Stress Reaction" is another...maybe even "Gulf War syndrome". It seems like every war has its' own set of words to describe a range of different conditions that we now sweep together into "PTSD". It's pretty clear that these conditions has been around since we've fought wars - I don't think it's anything new, it's just that we pay more attention to it these days. I've met many Vietnam vets who clearly exhibit severe PTSD symptoms - you're very wrong to say that they were somehow "stronger" than modern soldiers - that's a really obnoxious position to take. SteveBaker (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"going troppo" in the Pacific in WWII. Rmhermen (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - exactly. I hadn't heard of that one before - but there were lots of phrases used in different theaters and different eras that described what we now call "PTSD". I'm sure there will be new words to describe the condition in future wars. SteveBaker (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One complicating factor is that it's often not combat stress alone which causes the symptoms. "Shell shock" somewhat lumped the psychological issues in with the physical injuries from being near exploding artillery shells. Then there were chemicals, such as poison gas in WW1, Agent Orange in Vietnam, and exposure to petroleum combustion byproducts in the first Gulf War. Most recently, closed head injuries are becoming more of a factor, due to IEDs. StuRat (talk) 04:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

barbarians[edit]

why do barbarians wear such few clothes, like the male barbarian usually just has a loin cloth or a bit of fur and the lady barbarian just wears a bikini of cloth or metal, why do they not wear more clothes to protect themselves in a fight situation rather than going into battle almost nude? Horatio Snickers (talk) 19:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you're not just confusing the popular culture image of barbarians with real barbarians? JIP | Talk 19:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Are we talking about historical barbarians or barbarians from fantasy role playing games/novels/movies? If historical, then can you specify which particular group of barbarians dressed like this? I know that many Celtic warriors went into battle completely naked occasionally, but when they were not warring, they generally wore clothes suitable for the climate and season. Female barbarians are not known to have worn bikinis. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:39, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going into battle completely naked seems like it might reduce the number of warriors created in the next generation...by one means or another. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Aye, and that's why we invented sporrans.... KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 14:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Barbarians originally were people who could not speak proper Greek (thus sounding like "barbarbarbar" to civilised people, who, of course, speak nothing but Greek). Dungeons and Dragons type male "barbarians" wear little armour to avoid making the game system even more unbalanced. Female "barbarians" wear skimpy bikinis to give the illustrators the ability to draw images that the mostly adolescent male audience can ogle at. In real life, primitive people often wear little clothing because they live under conditions where they do not need more, and/or because they cannot afford more. Also note that Conan the Barbarian would bolt on any armour he could find in the original text. This did not usually translate to the covers, for much the same reason as for D&D. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP should might request a self-check-user. μηδείς (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what does this mean? Horatio Snickers (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What does what mean? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take it he's asking what Medeis meant, but failed to indent properly after her comment. I don't know what she means either, but guess she is implying the OP is a troll (somebody who asks silly questions just to stir things up). StuRat (talk) 16:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jong-un's face[edit]

I saw a picture on Facebook showing North Korea's Kim Jong-un and South Korea's Psy. What struck me was Kim Jong-un's face. Compared to Psy, his actual facial features seemed proportionally much smaller compared to his whole face than with Psy. Am I only imagining this, or has this been noted with Kim Jong-un? JIP | Talk 19:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if any published studies have occurred on this. I can say that different people have different features, even within otherwise relatively homogenous gene pools. And Mr. Kim is a touchy pudgy, too, moreso than Psy, so that's a thing. I'm not sure what kind of answer you are expecting. Mingmingla (talk) 19:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Low testosterone causes smaller features in males, and high body fat can lower testosterone. But there's no way we can diagnose his dear leaderness from afar. East Asians aren't known for heavy brows, big noses, full mouths, or strong jaws. He does seem to resemble his father to a certain extent. μηδείς (talk) 20:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We may soon find out the T-level of his missiles. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:54, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maesteg Wiki page, reassessment.[edit]

Over the years the Maesteg page has been developed and refined, yet is still placed in the 'Start' category. The historical content included on the page is sound, with references, and it is difficult to include any improvements. Could the page be reviewed and reassessed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coedtalon (talk • contribs) 20:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It really isn't a big deal, but if it matters to you, I'd suggest talking to the folks at WikiProject Wales. It looks B-class to me, but you might as well get it checked by folks in the know. Matt Deres (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, certainly don't take those reviews too much to heart. Oft-times articles will sit around for extensive periods of time before they ever receive a review, and I can't remember the last time I saw one automatically re-reviewed, i.e., without a request being made. FWIW that article was reviewed here, way back in Sept 2008. As Matt says you could request a review at the Wikiproject or even ask the original reviewer, User:Welsh to take another look; I see they are still a very active editor. There's some obvious areas where some basic improvements could be made, for example it could do with a bit of a copyedit from some neutral eyes (you could request a copyedit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests), referencing is a bit light on, and images are clearly lacking. --jjron (talk) 15:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of rewriting in the Education section, see if you like it. I endorse the suggestion of asking for the whole article to be copyedited. You should also think about the order of the sections. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

People who maintain WikiProjects eventually come to realize that these ratings are meaningless. Nobody bases any actions on them. The only ratings that are meaningful are "stub" (because it shows up in the article), GA ("good article"), FA ("featured article"), and A-class (for the few projects that use it). The other ratings are all treated the same. Looie496 (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]