Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2013 February 15

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 15

What is this game called in English?

When I was in Japan, I was the leader of a squad playing 'Survival', where two (or more) teams attack each other with BB guns. In Japanese, they use the English word 'survival' as the name of the game. What is the English name? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 06:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Please see Airsoft.Dncsky (talk) 06:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I can never remember the English name for it. Getting old now. Cheers. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Airsoft guns shoot small plastic balls while BB guns shoot steel BB's. While some have used these in such games it is significantly more dangerous. Paintball uses larger soft paint-filled balls. Rmhermen (talk) 19:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

My team had steel BBs, which didn't go as far as the plastic ones, but we used them because it was easier for the opposing team to actually know they had been hit, if we fired at the torso, which is what we usually did, because you don't fire at the face if you can help it. Sort of an unwritten, but common sense, rule. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

In the US, shooting someone intentionally with a BB gun would be assault. RNealK (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It would also be considered as assault in most countries, but not when it is a game. Consider American 'Football', where people attack each other to grab a ball, or consider rugby, or other contact sports. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:51, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

What makes something a "game"? If a friend and I go out with shotguns and blast away at each other, that's just a game, isn't it? RNealK (talk) 20:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Using BBs, there is not quite the same damaging effect as a shotgun. Plus, there are rules for each game. I believe you have taken this all out of proportion. There are no contact sports in the modern world where people kill each other intentionally. We have fun, and shoot little balls at each other, not 50 cal rifles that can blow a man's head apart. Anyway, for the answer to your question, a game becomes a game when we say it is a game, and reserve a place to play it. It is actually that simple. Try to play the game before you comment, because you will see what I mean. This is like vegetarians saying to me they are vegetarian but they would eat fish, even though a fish is not a bloody vegetable! KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 09:19, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I had a BB gun when I was a kid. I was taught it was a horrible thing to do, to try to shoot a person or an animal with it. Only targets were allowed. RNealK (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Well yeah, it would be a terrible thing to go shooting your friends (or even the school bully) with it, in any usual context. That's a far cry from what KageTora is talking about, where everyone knows the rules and consents to them, and presumably wears adequate protection over anything that could forseeably be seriously injured (say, eyes and ears). Now, I wouldn't play that game, but if others want to, it's their lookout, I suppose. --Trovatore (talk) 23:49, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Dude, there's certainly a huge difference between mutually playing a game and randomly shooting someone with a BB gun. If my buddies and I were to go out and shoot eachother with BB guns, we'd all get a bunch of welts, but that was a mutual decision and nobodies going to do anything about it. Ryan Vesey 23:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Are you entirely positive you shot BB guns at each other and not airsoft rifles? As pointed out at BB gun#Skirmish fighting it occurs, but it's relatively uncommon because it hurts less and it's safer to fight with. You'll find more information on the game at MilSim. Ryan Vesey 23:53, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I missed your comment above where you mentioned that you did in fact use steel BBs. Ryan Vesey 00:02, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

We mostly used electric-powered BB guns, which was annoying after an hour or so, because we had to change the battery, so we were weighed down by half a dozen batteries in our jackets, and in a heated battle it was hard to remember which ones were still charged. Some in the team had pump-action, and others preferred the gas-type, but most used the high-powered electric ones. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

[http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/24/3745059/man-shot-with-bb-gun-northwest.html - note the use of the word "crime". RNealK (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, duh. Are you deliberately missing the point? If I walk up to you on the street and punch you in the jaw, that's a crime and I can go to prison for it for a substantial amount of time. If we're sparring in the boxing ring and I punch you in the jaw, that's nobody's business but ours. --Trovatore (talk) 02:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, he is not understanding the thread. We use guns and hand grenades, wear protective gear, and have rules which all consent to, on land that we have hired to play the game. This makes it a game. Walking around in the street and shooting random people with a BB gun is a crime. Nobody gets killed or injured badly in a BB game (there are occasionally some light injuries, unfortunately, but you get that with skateboarding, or roller skating), so there are no problems. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 05:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Cost of execution vs cost of life in prison around the world

The cost of a death penalty case is much more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case in the US. (If you disagree on this point then please don't respond. I have no interest in debates.)

I suspect this is also true in most of the developed world (that practice death penalty). However, for less-developed countries the opposite is probably true. Take the extreme case of North Korea for example.

I am looking for a dataset that compares the cost of death penalty cases versus comparable non-death penalty cases worldwide. I am interested in where the breakeven point lies.

I tried googling but no matter what keywords I choose I keep getting pages about debates in the US. Even when I tried to focus the search on particular countries I still get US data: "According to American statistics (no Japanese statistics are available)"[1]. Dncsky (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Afaik China doesn't even release the total number of executions, let alone the detail you're after. I don't know about Japan. North Korea is obviously not even worth discussing. Shadowjams (talk) 09:12, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are very few countries that operate a death penalty with any significant degree of transparency. The US does, but that's about it (there may be a few others, but they generally have very few executions). That's why you can only find statistics based on the US. The high cost in the US comes from the large number of appeals that are generally involved. If you can find any statistics on time between the death penalty being passed and the execution actually taking place (which may be slightly easier to find that direct cost statistics), that would be a pretty good proxy for cost - the longer it takes, the more time there is to spend money. --Tango (talk) 12:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Note that, in the historic sense, the cost of imprisoning people for life was highly variable, too. In the worst cases, they just tossed them in some hole and never did anything else for them, leaving it to friends and relatives to bring them food, clothing, coal for heating, etc., and bury the body once they died. StuRat (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

In the old days, the time between conviction and execution was short, so it was certainly cost-effective. Nowadays, as noted by Tango, there is an automatic and lengthy appeals process, presumably to be sure there is no doubt about the case. There can also be appeals connected with lengthy prison sentences as well. We incarcerate a lot of people here, but we give them a better chance than many other nations would. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. Guess I'll keep looking. Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea don't strike me as particularly secretive nations and yet they publish no data on their death penalty process. That is troubling on many levels. Dncsky (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Japan has a similarly lengthy appeal process (from Capital punishment in Japan: " Therefore, in practice, the typical stay on death row is between five and seven years; a quarter of the prisoners have been on death row for over ten years. For several, the stay has been over 30 years"); however, death row prisoners are held in separate locations under harsher conditions so the costs may be widely different from those of supporting regular lifers. Rmhermen (talk) 19:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Holocaust question

During the Holocaust, were there any attempts by the victims to actually break out en masse from the gas chambers? I don't mean the "state of the art" ones like the one at Auschwitz-Birkenau where the Nazis used Zyklon-B, which kills quickly -- but surely in older or mobile ones, where diesel exhaust was the asphyxiating agent used, the victims knew right away that they were being suffocated, and had a few minutes to try to break out? Especially in the case of the death vans used in the T-4 program, which were basically converted city buses with sealed and painted-over windows and with the exhaust pipe directed into the passenger compartment, wouldn't it have been very much possible in those few minutes to smash a window and jump out (preferably when the bus is not moving, but even at speed if need be)? I mean, other than being burned alive (which was practiced at some of the death camps, as well), is there anything worse than being slowly suffocated to death? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It depends on whether you're being suffocated by nitrogen: I am reliably informed that it makes you extremely happy just before you succumb. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That actually has nothing to do with the nitrogen - any relatively inert gas will have the same effect. The urge to take a breath is determined by build up of CO2, rather than lack of oxygen, so as long as you are still able to breathe out the CO2 you won't get the panic usually associated with asphyxiation. When you are strangled, you can't breathe out the CO2, so you feel the desperate need to take a breath and panic as a result. Exhaust fumes kill by carbon monoxide poisoning, I think, which starts with a nasty headache and then causes drowsiness and you fall unconcious. I don't think it's particularly unpleasant in itself (people often don't notice it is happening to them), although the other things in exhaust would probably be unpleasant even though they aren't killing you. --Tango (talk) 12:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

One of the insidious things about the Holocaust was that most of the people being executed did not know what was happening until it was too late to do anything about it. As those around them began to die, I am sure that at least some realized something awful was going on, and tried to escape (individually or en masse)... but found the doors to the truck or gas chamber securely locked. And if they did manage to escape, there were guards with machine guns waiting to mow them down. Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that in the case of the carbon monoxide gas chambers, it would have taken so long for people to realize what was happening -- the characteristic smell would have alerted the victims that someone was piping smoke into the chamber long before anyone actually succumbed to the toxicity. And it was during that time frame that the victims had the best chance of breaking out en masse (break down the door and rush out, ignoring the guards' bullets; or, in the case of the carbon monoxide buses, just smash out a window and jump, like I said before). 24.23.196.85 (talk) 02:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

So, you have three questions from the IP here.

1. "were there any attempts by the victims to actually break out en masse from the gas chambers" (by the people inside the chambers while they were actually running)?
2. is it true that "the victims knew right away that they were being suffocated"?
3. "is there anything worse than being slowly suffocated to death", other than, "being burned alive"?

It looks like we have dealt with questions two and three (unless anyone would like to expand on question three), so do we have any responses for question one? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This site notes that, on June 10, 1942, "Mutiny and an attempt at mass escape of about 350 Polish prisoners from the penal company in Birkenau. 7 managed to escape, 300 died." Bielle (talk) 03:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Pssst, 24.23.196.85: Carbon monoxide is colourless, tasteless and odourless. Bielle (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

CO was used in the gas vans, but it was anything but pure CO — it was the exhaust gas of the vehicles themselves. I am sure that would have been easily detectable by the victims. A far larger number were killed with HCN, which is not odorless (though not everyone can smell it). --Trovatore (talk) 03:17, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

As Gas chamber#Nazi Germany notes, the CO came from the exhaust of petrol or diesel motors (sometimes on vehicles). -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 03:19, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there any nihilist thinker today?

Is this philosophy still existing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshua Atienza (talk • contribs) 07:01, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are seven billion people in the world, so the answer to pretty any question of the form "is there anyone that believes X?" is going to be "yes". --Tango (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

undoubtedly there are lots, some might even write about it, but most probably don't see the point---- _nonsense ferret 12:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I think the OP means "Are there any professional philosophers that actually get published in reputable journals, or who publish books that other professional philosophers are aware of, who are nihilists?" This is a ref desk, so a reference saying there are none, or a reference to one or more, would be nice. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Two potential examples are Gianni Vattimo John N. Gray --_nonsense ferret 20:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Religious order for scientifically minded

I am not even a religious believer, but I am sort of idly wondering what sort of (male) religious order I would join if I were religious (perhaps Catholic). What appeals to me is something like Stasheff's fictional Order of St. Vidicon. What's the closest real equivalent? I.e. a primarily teaching or intellectually oriented order with lots of scientists and engineers? My guess is that Jesuits might be one, but it has a very ambiguous history, not one I would especially like to be associated with. What are some other ones? --50.136.244.171 (talk) 08:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You might like to explore Buddhism. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There is a "God" in Buddhism, only this "God" isn't a personal deity as in Western religions. The existence of spirits or some higher power would be antithetical to atheism. 140.254.227.58 (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Deism in general, and Freemasonry in particular both have a long history of a rational approach to the theistic view of the universe, though I'm not sure either of them can be described as a "religious order". Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

For Catholic orders, the Society of Jesus (perhaps better known as "Jesuits") have a very intellectual bent, with a focus on science and education. See List of Jesuit scientists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The OP more or less ruled the Jesuits out in his question. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I should read more carefully... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You might investigate Chaos Magic, some of whose practitioners (ObPersonal) have been described as pursuing or being associated with Techno-magic(k) (the latter term is also used in (more) explicitly fictional settings). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 12:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Taoism was always closely associated with Chinese science. But it isn't an order. Not a disorder either. The Tao itself is the order. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there is a religious order that is specifically oriented towards scientific exploration ... but most orders would have no problem if a member of their order focused on scientific exploration as part of their personal vocation. Given that monasteries tend not to have modern science labs, a Monastic order such as the Benedictines or Cistercians would probably not be the best option. You would probably want to join one of the Mendicant orders (friars) such as the Dominicans or Franciscans. While these orders focus on religious works, there is nothing in the orders' rules that would bar a friar from working at a scientific institution. (and if you are into Astronomy... you could apply to work at the Vatican Observatory) Blueboar (talk) 16:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• In the history of the Catholic church, the Dominican Order is classically associated with intellectual pursuits. The Franciscans have also been intellectual, but they tended to be more left-leaning and open-minded whereas the Dominicans were right-leaning and conservative. Even so, some important proto-scientists such as Roger Bacon and William of Ockham were Franciscans. Looie496 (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether the Dominican philosopher Thomas Aquinas would be an exception. 140.254.227.58 (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Um, an exception to what, exactly? Looie496 (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The Benedictines were also rather intellectual. But were there ever any scientists or engineers in the modern understanding in any of the religious orders? Adam Bishop (talk) 22:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

We have the rather interesting page List_of_Roman_Catholic_scientist-clerics, which is limited to priests clerics which seems to include monks and abbots.... It seems to list the religious order next to the relevant names, and while Jesuits are strongly represented it seems all the other orders mentioned here also feature. For the general case, we seem to have List of Catholic scientists, which you could skim for lay religious. I found these via the Big Bang theory article, because I can never remember how to spell George L's name. 86.163.209.18 (talk) 22:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

OP here. Thanks guys, I am indeed more interested in modern rather than historical situations. To me Franciscans are primarily "caring for the poor" kind of guys nowadays, I don't think they go for intellectual stuff much, or am I wrong? Modern Dominicans I don't know much about. 50.136.244.171 (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I challenge anyone to watch Franco Zeffirelli's very very beautiful Brother Sun, Sister Moon [2] and not want to be a Franciscan ;) --_nonsense ferret 22:27, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, one of my favourite movies ever. It's hard not to shed a tear. Then one reads stories like this, and sheds tears for different reasons. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 00:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The Franciscans have a relatively poor record in dealing with certain native peoples, in WW2 Croatia, etc. (for some reason the Jesuits were better at protecting native peoples in the early Spanish colonial empire). The Pueblo Revolt was in significant degree motivated by hatred of Franciscan practices... AnonMoos (talk) 15:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The Marist Brothers are also highly intellectual. μηδείς (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look them up. 50.136.244.171 (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC) (OP)

Five American presidents

The lead of the article Encyclopædia Britannica states (without a source, I will add), that among the Encyclopedia's thousands of contributors have been "five American presidents". The article itself doesn't mention this (which makes the statement constitute a violation of WP:SUMMARY, but that's not the point), and a cursory check of Google turns up no results for the claim. Does anyone have further info on this? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 11:24, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if they include unwitting contributors. For example, the def for "score", meaning 20, might quote Abraham Lincoln: "Four score and seven years ago...". StuRat (talk) 12:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That would be a highly creative and original definition of "contributor", Stu. I've never heard of someone whose words are merely quoted in some book as being a "contributor" to that book; not even an unwitting one. I'm sure David Irving included a few quotes in his various scribblings, but I doubt any of the originators would be happy to consider themselves as contributors to those esteemed publications. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

However, if listing Presidents as contributors helps their sales, they might indeed find ways to be "highly creative". StuRat (talk) 17:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

See the fourth paragraph here. Deor (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I was expecting Wilson to be one of them (since he was a college professor who wrote textbooks), but I guess not... AnonMoos (talk) 18:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Deor! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Manhattan Phone Number 1942

Hello. What would a phone number look like, which was current in Manhattan in the year 1942? Thanks. --Logograph (talk) 12:23, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

That would depend on where in Manhattan you were: [3]. The 7 digit number would be the same, except that the first two digits would be given as letters, with a word used to remember it. See PEnnsylvania 6-5000 for an interesting example of a song based on such a number. Note that area codes did not exist at the time. So, to call from out of state, you'd dial 0 for the operator, then say "Long distance please, New York City, PEnnsylvania 6-5000 ... thank you". StuRat (talk) 12:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's a 1940 Manhattan phone book (the form of the phone numbers didn't change between 1940 and 1942). Some of the exchange names are slightly abbreviated in the phone book, but the full forms are easy to deduce. Deor (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Great. Thank you very much, StuRat and Deor. --Logograph (talk) 14:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. May we mark this Q resolved ? StuRat (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

For an example of how people wrote down a phone number, see journalist Ward Green's draft card. Zoonoses (talk) 05:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow, doing the math, that draft registration card was for men 45 to 65. What, no 100-year olds ? StuRat (talk) 05:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

As per Selective Service System, 65 was indeed the cut off age for registration at the time. Nil Einne (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Category German murderers of children

After reading an article on here on Wikipedia I consider including Hitler's personal dentist Helmut Kunz and personal surgeon Ludwig Stumpfegger into that category? Am I allowed to do so or I have to request permission on the talk page? Kotjap (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You can either be WP:BOLD and just do it, or you can ask on the talk page what other editors think. Your choice. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You do not need permission to add a category to an article. However, this is likely to be a contentious categorization... so be prepared to discuss it on the talk page if anyone objects. Sources are the key. Blueboar (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added the categories, I am open to discussion. Kotjap (talk) 18:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You already asked about Ludwig Stumpfegger at Wikipedia:Help desk#Category (Wikipedia:Help desk#Category 2 until an old section is archived) where I answered: "That sounds inappropriate if he wasn't in charge and didn't give it directly to the children." PrimeHunter (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Janez Kenzer, oil painter

Janez Kenzer is a Yugoslavian-born, German painter, born 1930, best known for his "Winery Village Landscape," and "Tranquil Village Scene." Several galleries carry and sell his work.

I believe he is worthy of research and an entry in Wikipedia.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.146.135 (talk) 17:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

You can request an article at WP:Requested Articles (but the list is very long). You can try your hand at writing it yourself with the Wikipedia:Article wizard. Rmhermen (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Anne of Brittany

After the death of Francis II, Duke of Brittany, the throne should have gone to the descendants of Joanna of Penthièvre not his daughter Anne of Brittany according to the agreement established after the Breton War of Succession. I understand the agreement was forgotten or ignored but who stood to benefit if it had been followed, who would have been the duke of Brittany?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

The king of France. The king bought the rights from the Penthièvres. Could you do that? Apparently. Paul B (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just checked up on the details. It was in-effect sold to Louis XI by countess Nicole de Châtillon (Nicole du Bois), but legally it was "bequeathed" on her death (1480). The union of Britanny and France was facilitated by the 1480 claim, which was reaffirmed in the 1535 treaty of union. I should add that the exact implications of the original 1365 treaty were disputed. The Montforts claimed that they had ceased to be valid because the terms had expired. Had it not been sold (sorry, bequeathed) it would, I assume, have gone to Nicole's son Jean III de Brosse. Paul B (talk) 21:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

We also have an article on the Treaty of Guérande (1365). I don't think it's so much that the terms had "expired", but the imprisonment of John VI by the Countess of Penthievre in 1420 invalidated the treaty (at least in the eyes of the Montfort line). By the way, the castle where John VI was imprisoned was called Chateauceaux, but in revenge he razed the whole thing to the ground, and the town is now called Champtoceaux, heh. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Princess Augusta of Cambridge

Princess Augusta of Cambridge seemed like she was hilarious senile old lady in the latter part of her life. But for some reason I can't find any of her quotes like about Princess Maud of Wales becoming "the Queen of a revolutionary throne" outside of Wikipedia.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Llywelyn the Last

In the "Supremacy in Wales" section of this article it says: ...and could if he wished, purchase the homage of the one outstanding native prince - Maredudd ap Rhys of Deheubarth - for another 5,000 marks. Could someone explain further in simple terms what this means exactly. Is there further reference sources detailing this?--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

It means that Henry gave him nominal sovreignty over Wales, and the other Welsh princes went along with it (at first), except Maredudd...it's a coy way of saying that Maredudd would be loyal, for a price. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, wait, that's not quite right. Maredudd owed homage to Henry in England, and it was Henry who was willing to extort a bit of extra money by selling this homage to Llywelyn. Apparently this is the text of the treaty. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Adam. The book source is very useful. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 13:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sale with rebates up to 75% or more even for shoes, where's the logic and where's the arbitrage?

The price of shoes swing enormously during the year, prices being lowered up to 90% during "sale" (Closeout (sale)). There must be a lot of customers like me who wear shoes for at least a year without being afraid of being totally old-fashioned, buying more or less exactly the same shoes when they get too old. Apparantly, I'm a complete idiot for buying shoes whenever I feel like instead of waiting for the rebates. So my first question is: why do shoe prices swing that much during the year whereas they don't seem to change that much? And my second question is, why are there no "arbitrage shops" that buy the cheap shoes at 75% off and sell them all year at 50% off? Joepnl (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

There are places that always sell shoes at a discount. Factory outlet stores, for example, like Saks 5th Avenue Off 5th: [4]. (There are actually more factory outlet stores than full-priced Sakses.) StuRat (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally, that type of pricing usually indicates substantial markups. That is, the shoes that sell for $200 probably only cost $10 to make, thanks to Asian sweat shops, so they can still make a profit even at 90% off ($20). StuRat (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply, it's amazing how fast Wikipedia answers questions, especially people like you. Between the Asian $10 shoes and the shop are of course numerous others that have to design them, ship them, take the risk of not selling any, etc. Anyway, I alway buy the same Dutch brand of shoes. I was aware of outlet stores, but they seem solve the inventory problems at factory level (?). I mean a shop that does all brands, buying all the "left overs" from normal shops (with possibly even bigger rebates) selling them at a time when I see there is a hole in my shoe instead of a sign at a shop. Joepnl (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Some places have sales which say "no dealers" or something similar. You might think "How would they know you intend to resell them ?". Well, if you ask for 500 pair, and your name isn't Imelda, that's their first clue. Also, the ones on sale are likely to be a few pair of each style, heavy in some sizes and lacking in others, with some damaged or irregulars. It's hard to run a shoe store with stock like that (which is why the original store is selling them off cheaply). StuRat (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I never saw a "no dealers" sign here, but that would indicate some arbitrage happening. If I had a shop I'd love to see a dealer buying 500 pair instead of having to talk to 499 extra customers so I don't see why a shop would carry such a sign. (unless the sale is a kind of service to their regular customers?). The season might be important for an extremely fashionable clientile but that can't be the case for shoes. All the other shops don't have these seasons. A hardware shop doesn't sell hammers at 25% of the price because its september, the end of hammering season. Joepnl (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't really get the relevance of this to the original discussion since you seemed to be the first to bring up seasons. But anyway I don't know how things work in the US however I'm reasonably sure here in NZ there is a strong seasonal aspect to DIY or hardware shops. You may not see this quite so much in hammers (although I expect there could still easily be a few hundred percent difference in sales figures between the highest selling month and lowest selling month) but you do see this with other items. For example outdoor paint and other stuff intended for the outdoors will have higher sales in the spring and summer months. You also see the advertising and sales targeted at what they expect people to be buying during that time. They don't tend to have post season sales because they aren't completely eliminating stock and they probably have an easier time with inventory management then more completely seasonal items. There are also other peak times, e.g. power tools and other such more personal items during father's day and Christmas. Note that in mild temperate countries at least, there must be a strong seasonal aspect to clothes regardless of whether the clientele is 'fashionable' since far fewer people buy thick jackets and coats during the summer and far fewer people buy everyday short pants during winter. Even with stuff like pyjamas and other nightwear there is often a difference between what's suitable for the hotter months and what's suitable for the colder months. P.S. In plenty of cases, even when an item isn't a loss leader if it's quite cheap in relative terms the stores hope is probably to get you in the door and buying other stuff (whether in addition to or instead of the item that's cheap). This doesn't generally apply with sales to dealers. In addition, a store may sometimes negotiate a good deal with a supplier with the proviso they don't onsell to other dealers. Nil Einne (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The "No dealers" notice, or alternatively a limit on quantity, are often listed in the fine print for an ad, so you won't see it unless you look for it. I've wondered myself why they don't allow this. I suspect a combo of not wanting to piss off loyal customers who come in for a sale only to find everything was bought up already, and not wanting to give a potential competitor any help. As far as end-of-the-season sales, one huge factor is if the same item can be sold again next season. Since things like shoes tend to be redesigned every year, last year's shoes won't sell well. A hammer, on the other hand, doesn't need to be redesigned each year. However, when they do come out with a new model, they do, indeed, have a clearance sale to get rid of the old ones. StuRat (talk) 17:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)