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

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.

April 10

roshan padvi

roshan padvi hi i am student of m.sc in entomology at p.s.g.v.p.m.shahada my contacts as follows <removed> email <removed> <removed> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkpadvi (talk • contribs) 10:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed your contact details as their only purpose here is to open you up to a torrent of spam. This page is for asking questions on any humanities-related topic. Did you have such a question? Rojomoke (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The prices of items often end in 99 cents.

At least in the USA, many items are sold with a price that ends in 99 cents (for example, the item costs $24.99 or $19.99, etc.). I assume there is some "psychological" reason for this? Or some "trick" that occurs in the human mind that convinces consumers that the price is somehow "less" expensive? Even though we know the difference between $19.99 and $20.00 is only one penny, there must be some (subtle or perhaps subconscious) inner workings of the mind that make us feel that there is a wider discrepancy of price? So, does any one know the answer to why this occurs so frequently in marketing? Are there are studies (or even articles) that discuss this phenomenon? Does Wikipedia have any article related to this? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Psychological pricing. Marco polo (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that one price (for instance $20) seems more arbitrary than the other (for instance $19.99). I think the aim is to convey to the consumer that all efforts have been made to sell the item at the lowest possible price. Bus stop (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At one of my local supermarkets, the prices of some fresh food items fluctuate wildly. Tomatoes in particular are rarely the same price from one week to the next, sometimes changing twice or more in a week. But it's always - ALWAYS - a price that ends in 99 cents per kilo: $4.99 --> $6.99 --> $5.99 --> $8.99 --> $5.99 --> $7.99 --> $6.99 .... That says to me that their efforts to "sell the item at the lowest possible price" are pretty well non-existent. Why is it never a price that ends in 49 cents, or 84 cents, or 25 cents, or 96 other possibilities? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "their efforts to 'sell the item at the lowest possible price' are pretty well non-existent." It is a marketing convention. It bears no relation to reality. A price of $20 may be low for a product. But it doesn't wave a flag saying "bargain". For that flag we have to use the "convention" $19.99. It is the way the seller tells the buyer that "keeping prices low was a consideration". This is my guess, anyway. Bus stop (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's the even more absurd case of 9/10ths of a cent added to the end of the price of a gallon of gas. Note that if you sell something for $19.99 and the competition sells it for $20, you can also legitimately claim that your price is lower, while they can't claim their price is the same, without adding a weasel word like "about". I find a $19.99 price particularly annoying when I have a "50% off all purchases of $20 or more" coupon. I also suspect they do that on purpose. StuRat (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't see it mentioned in our article, I'll add that I think (WP:OR) this is much less common in countries/regions where sales tax is included in the sticker price. Maybe someone who lives in such an area can comment? SemanticMantis (talk) 16:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak of countries in general, but certainly in the UK prices are usually quoted inclusive of VAT, and .99 and .95 prices are common. (When the VAT is listed separately, for instance on the invoice, the price is calculated so that it comes to .99 after adding VAT. --ColinFine (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, although some British retailers now make a virtue of pricing everything to the nearest 50p or £1 - Iceland (supermarket) and Primark spring to mind. Alansplodge (talk) 19:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, the law requires that all prices be quoted inclusive of GST (where it applies), so that the price shown on the item is exactly what you pay at the check out. There are still plenty of cases of 99-cent pricing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:59, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same in NZ. And note Australia's smallest denomination of coin is the 5c, NZ the 10c so in neither can you pay 99c or several multiples thereof exactly if using physical currency (although both countries have very high rates of debit and credit card usage). BTW I don't know about tomatoes but it isn't that uncommon to have 9 cent non 99 cent prices, e.g. $1.49, $2.29. Nil Einne (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this issue was explored in some depth (maybe more than once) on the ref desk some months or years ago. It's a marketing tactic. Whether it really works or not, who knows? The gas price stuff is funny. Say 3.99 and 9/10 for a gallon. So if you buy 10 gallons you pay 39.99 instead of 40.00. Yee-hah! Taxing is funny too. With some things, such as gas, and food at the ballpark, the tax is included. With a typical retail store, it's explicitly added on, so at that point you know exactly what the tax is. How do you know what it is when it's included in the price? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you need to know how much of the total price is tax? You don't pay those components separately, nor are you required to keep tabs on it and submit a return of the total sales tax you paid in a year. Are you? Or would you be suspecting retailers of adding too much tax? Their response would no doubt be: "No, we just increased the base price and the tax rose accordingly". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I am not as trusting as you are. This is my libertarian side: I want to know where my money is going. And I don't inherently trust organizations to do things honestly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then you have a problem. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you inherently trust faceless institutions, it's not me that has the problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so naive as to think they always operate appropriately in every sense. But equally, I'm not permanently on the watchout for shady dealings, being ripped off, etc. When I pay cash (hardly ever these days), I always check my change because honest mistakes do sometimes happen. I don’t assume they'll be trying it on every chance they get. Only if the same operator makes the same "honest mistake" every time would I suspect foul play.

But this may be a cultural thing. Until 2001, we had a whole host of state and federal sales etc taxes, but they generally applied only to certain specialised kinds of purchases, and predominantly wholesale purchases at that. Hence most people had little practical experience of these sorts of taxes. For the most part, we've never been used to paying a different price at the checkout than the advertised price. These sundry taxes were all abolished in lieu of the GST (along with a cut in personal income tax). The transparent pricing regime that has been the Australian way forever was an integral part of the GST system. It was made an offence to advertise a price that excluded the GST, and people were strongly encouraged to report offending operators. I did it once. I was flying interstate for a week and decided to park my car in a longstay carpark near the airport. I got a few quotes and went to the cheapest one. After I got back from interstate and went to collect my car, I got a nasty surprise when the price they wanted to charge me was higher than what they had quoted me. When I queried it, I got "Oh, but we don’t include GST in our quotes". To which I said "Oh, but you are legally required to, specifically to avoid customers getting rude shocks like the one I'm getting now". They wouldn’t back down and demanded full payment before they'd let me retrieve my car. The first phone call I made after I got home was to the Compliance area of the Australian Taxation Office. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 02:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why should prices being inclusive of VAT mean that you don't know how much of the price is tax? Do they not provide receipts in your corner of the globe? And if the price is too high in one shop, I don't actually care whether it's because of tax or because the shopkeeper is gouging prices: the percentage tax is the same for all shops, and I will buy it where it is cheaper. How would pretending more of the price is tax than it actually is even work? I know how much I'm being asked to pay, up front, and I either pay it or I don't. I understand that things being done differently in different parts of the world is scary and upsetting, but I don't even see how the supposed scamming would work. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 09:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:

1) For small transactions in my area of the US, like at a fast food restaurant, they often don't give you a receipt unless requested (and even then it can be a hassle).

2) They also often screw up the state sales taxes here. Dollar Tree improperly charges sales tax on the original amount of a purchase when you use a coupon, counter to Michigan state Law (and I've never been able to find who to complain about to get this fixed), while whether or not you pay sales tax at Baskin-Robbins depends on which one you visit (the tax is for "prepared foods", and they can't seem to agree on whether scooping it into a cone counts as preparation.) Then there was the bizarre case in Connecticut where buying a suit added a hefty luxury tax, while buying the jacket and pants separately put each item under $100, thus avoiding the tax.

3) I would prefer that they include the taxes in all their quoted prices. For one thing, this makes it easier to pay in exact change, as less math is required. This is especially true at the grocery store, where "food" is not taxable, but other items are (although they seem to include many items in the "food" category that seem more like a lab experiment to me). Some of the ads are just plain dishonest when they omit taxes, saying "You can walk in and buy X with only a dollar !".

4) Some people or organizations, such as churches, may be exempt from paying taxes, complicating matters further. StuRat (talk) 14:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at archives for the term "99 cents", and this one from seven years ago turned up first. I find the archive search very clunky to use, but if you've got the patience, you can probably find the more recent reference or references. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full text of GI Bill (as of 1944)

Can anyone tell me where I can view (online or download a pdf) of a complete copy of the entire Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (commonly known as the GI Bill)? Thank you for looking, even if you don't find me an answer.--71.167.166.18 (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was the top link in Google when I tried a search for Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944. --Jayron32 15:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's the first place I landed on. All you can get there is a few pages of a giant bill. I'm looking for the whole text in an accessible form.--71.167.166.18 (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You wanted to search for "GI Bill". According to [1] the full text is at United States Statutes At Large 58 Stat. L. 284, which is downloadable from here. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Downloaded. It's searchable! Thanks!--71.167.166.18 (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the Statutes at Large citation (though not the link) is in the first sentence of the G. I. Bill article. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 04:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grimms' Fairy Tales

Has anybody done an analysis on Grimms' Fairy Tales that looks into the Christian allusions? I can't help but notice all the religiosity of the characters. At times, God intervenes and plays a direct role in the plot through miraculous healings. The good is rewarded by God, while the wicked is condemned. There is one story about an unnamed Brother and Sister. The Brother is impulsive and turns into a fawn (no idea why a fawn). The Sister is patient, humble, and beautiful, and she marries a King (it's unclear how old this girl is). She's also very pious, as there is one scene in which she prays a bedtime prayer. Since these stories are born out of Germany, I have a hunch they are very Christian. 140.254.226.239 (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This book, "The Owl, The Raven, and The Dove: The Religious Meaning of the Grimms' Magic Fairy Tales" -- seems to contain what you're looking for [2]. Our own article Brothers Grimm specifically says "In the later editions Wilhelm polished the language to make it more enticing to a bourgeois audience, eliminated sexual elements and added Christian elements." SemanticMantis (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read on Wikipedia that the original Rapunzel (that is, first edition) published by the Grimm Brothers hinted at Rapunzel's pregnancy, alluding to the possibility that the prince might have had sex with her or raped her. As Christian readers tend to have very gentle palates for books, it would make sense to eliminate it. Writing is a business; you have to please the reader. By the way, I wonder if there is any difference between the Christian reader and the ordinary gentle reader. 140.254.227.53 (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure the story is any less gentle than that of Lot and his daughters. Or his wife. More than just implications there. A lot of "unpalatable" things in the Bible. Magic, infanticide, war, defecation. Christians can be sensitive, but I don't know about a tendency. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Selling food in the USA

In the USA, there are many laws and restrictions that accompany the ability to market and sell food products. Most of this, I assume, is overseen by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). So, it seems like a very highly regulated industry. That being the case, how is it exactly that just anybody can sell food products on internet sites like e-Bay or Amazon? I often see various food items being sold at sites like those. And they are being sold by regular, ordinary people (not business entities). How exactly do these individuals "escape" all the FDA rules and regulations? It seems to defeat the whole point of the FDA and food safety. Any insights? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your question could do with an example or two of what you mean. μηδείς (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Examples on e-Bay. Just type in a word like "cookies", "oatmeal", or "cereal" in the search bar. Those were three that I tried, off the top of my head. I am sure Amazon would be similar. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Ebay site lists its own set of regulations [3] that requires sellers to follow federal law, including getting a license if their state requires it. That page says that if a listing doesn't follow their requirements they will remove it and might suspend the account. But it doesn't say anything about their methods for checking that their rules are followed. I find the FDA site virtually unsearchable, but it does say this [4]: Importers can import foods into the United States without prior sanction by FDA, as long as the facilities that produce, store, or otherwise handle the products are registered with FDA, and prior notice of incoming shipments is provided to FDA. The FDA site has forms for giving this notice. 184.147.128.82 (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It makes total sense that internet companies would need to follow the laws. I wonder what the FDA does not cover. That info did not seem to be in our article. I would think local Ma-and-Pa-type vegetable stands might fall outside the FDA's realm as it's not interstate commerce, at least not directly. But interstate commerce covers a lot of ground. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How is Amazon/Ebay selling any different than a local school bake sale? I'm pretty sure all those alpha moms aren't registered with the FDA. --209.203.125.162 (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's different because of scale. An internet company could sell millions of items. If a school sold millions of items at a "bake sale", I suspect the FDA would try to regulate them, too. StuRat (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd imagine it's less a matter of volume, and more a matter of what kind of food it is (perishable or not) and what you do with it (prepare/manufacture it, or just selling it). So there are various sanitary-type regulations for restaurants and for packing plants (that manufacture stuff like canned soup), but I don't think there's much regulation of grocery stores who just sell the canned soup from their shelves. Not sure about stuff like dairy products (must be refrigerated and not sold after expiration date stamped on carton). 70.36.142.114 (talk) 15:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of popular contemporary fiction

I am suggesting a list of reading for an advanced but non-native English speaker. She has expressed interest in A Clockwork Orange, Stranger in a Strange Land, and The Satanic Verses. But except for Thomas Harris, Anne Rice, Stephen King, and Michael Crichton my contemporary reading is mostly limited to science fiction. I've already forwarded the Modern Library's 100 Best of the 20th century lists. I'd like to suggest other titles along the lines of The Handmaid's Tale, The Time Traveller's Wife, and Children of Men. Can anyone suggest either specific books similar to the last three and links to their article, or better, a critical or popular list of more recent such fiction? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 19:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read any of those books, but goodreads.com has a cross-recommendation feature. Search for a book and then click "readers also enjoyed". Example: [5] 70.36.142.114 (talk) 19:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have a couple.

In The Beauty Of The Lilies, by John Updike (contemporary, family saga)
Holes, by Louis Sachar (contemporary, set in the 1990s)
Small Steps, by Louis Sachar (contemporary, set after Holes)
Charlotte's Web, by E.B. White (not explicitly stated but presumed to be contemporary)
The Trumpet of the Swan, by E.B. White (not explicitly stated but presumed to be contemporary)
Stuart Little, by E.B. White (not explicitly stated but presumed to be contemporary)
Speak, by Laurie Halse Anderson (contemporary high school setting)
Just Ella, by Margaret Peterson Haddix (contemporary author, fairy tale)
Ella Enchanted, by Gail Carson Levine (contemporary author, fairy tale)
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, written by Judi Barrett and illustrated by Ron Barrett
Pickles to Pittsburgh, written by Judi Barrett and illustrated by Ron Barrett
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 3: Planet of the Pies, written by Judi Barrett and illustrated by Isidre Mones 140.254.227.55 (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so far for the goodreads site and the list. I should specify the reader is adult, and didn't care for Lord of the Rings or Narnia. She does like Paulo Coelho and Stephen King. μηδείς (talk) 20:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Taking "contemporary" to mean "the author is still alive" (or is Muriel Spark), here are a few suggestions:

Of course, this is also a great way to get to know a little more about the tastes of contributors to the Reference Desk. I imagine we are biased towards speculative fiction, and I suspect that many of us revere Heinlein. RomanSpa (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Heinlein's my third favorite writer, and has written more books on my best list than any other author. But I am so happy you mentioned Maupin, she'll love tales of the cty, and I didn't think of it. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend The_Wind-Up_Bird_Chronicle every chance I get. It's originally in Japanese, though the English translation is quite good. Might be available in friend's native language if that's desirable. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does she specifically want books originally written in English? I keep thinking of titles translated into English from other languages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.142.114 (talk) 08:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not look through lists of award winners, as at Man Booker Prize? Many worthwhile reads there. Nominees here. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Franzen, The Corrections and Freedom. --Viennese Waltz 09:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again a lot depends on your definition of "contemporary fiction", and also on what you are trying to achieve in this list. For me, no modern fiction list would be complete without To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, The Color Purple, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams or something by Terry Pratchett, but I suspect this reflects my preferences more than anything else. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there's a strong subjective element her in regard to what she's actually interested in. The problem on my end is that I very rarely read best-sellers or critic's choices, and my knowledge of the newer "classics" of the last 40 years is limited. Having suggestions like Mockingbird and Tales of the City, and the link to the Mann Booker Prize is a great jog to the memory. μηδείς (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try the Flavia de Luce series (sometimes packaged as the Buckshaw Chronicles) from Alan Bradley (writer). My elderly mother loves those. It uses British English (despite the author being Canadian), so might give a non-native English speaker a broader exposure to another variant of English. StuRat (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Stephenson might suit you, both for this list and for your own edification (with the caveat that The Baroque Cycle is, well, baroque even by his standards), particularly Snow Crash, The Diamond Age, and Cryptonomicon. I'd also look at A Confederacy of Dunces by John Kennedy Toole, which is hilarious (I like to teaser-line it as "What if Nero Wolfe were a shiftless bum living in New Orleans?"). The Third Policeman by Flann O'Brien is good, and has that same sort of vaguely magical/hallucinatory feeling throughout that you get from Rushdie, albeit Irish instead of Indian. Oh, hmm: I see now you wanted titles similar to the last three you mentioned, not the first three. Crap. I can't help you there: I found Oryx and Crake to be well done but claustrophobically depressing. I'll close with a link that's unhelpful but hilarious: what if every book were titled in the most directly descriptive way possible? Hopefully other people find that as stomach-hurting hilarious as I did (the further down you scroll the better, I think) and maybe some covers will jog your memory further. ☯.Zen Swashbuckler.☠ 17:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Dickens ,Rumer Godden ,and Dodie Smith (She wrote more than just 101 Dalmations)are much neglected authors who write what I would call contemporary fiction. I suspect they got labled women's writers but all 3 are more than that.Hotclaws (talk) 10:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rate of China's population in growth in 1960

I was browsing the page for China and this chart caught my eye. What's the reason for the steep drop in growth rate and population size in 1960? Was this the time of Mao's massacres? — Melab±1 ☎ 22:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great Chinese Famine - there was terrible mortality. 184.147.128.82 (talk) 22:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I always thought it was interesting that 30 million Chinese could die in the worst manmade disaster in history, more than twice the death toll of WWI, with few people in the West knowing about it. --Bowlhover (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The focus was more on the USSR. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

...and they kept it secret. StuRat (talk) 00:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]