Humanities desk
< July 2	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 4 >

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.

July 3[edit]

Why do some athletes talk in third person[edit]

"X" has to do what's best for "x." I've heard it a number of times, and it makes little sense. I thought about asking in Languages, but decided over here was better, because it just doesn't sound normal.

I'm not saying these people suffer some mental disorder - though I guess it culd be the sign of one? But, there must be some psychological reason. Delusions of grandeur maybe, where the person thinks he's so important that he needs to say some things as though he's writing a press release? Or, is it simply trying to show false modesty. Perhaps they think, "If I say 'I' all the time, people will think I'm selfish, nd there's no 'I' in team. So, I'll go by my actual name when I talk."209.244.187.155 (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a way of speaking. It is no different than using "we" instead of "I" when speaking (often referred to as the "royal we"). If you are person who is written about often, you will see your name a lot in phrases such as, "Kainaw said that..." or "Kainaw is going to..." After reading those phrases over and over, it is not surprising that some people will begin speaking the same way. -- kainaw ™ 01:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking about one's self in the third person may be "just a way of speaking" but it's not common. I don't buy your proposed explanation whatsoever—politicians don't talk like that despite being quoted constantly. (That is, not including Bob Dole, who was lampooned for speaking about himself in the third person.) --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably just a form of "tough guy" tradition. Ever see Bull Durham? One baseball player explains to another how to talk to the press: "Learn your clichés. Study them. Know them. They're your friends. Write this down. 'We gotta play 'em one day at a time.'" "Boring." "Of course. That's the point. 'I'm just happy to be here and hope I can help the ballclub.'" "Jesus." "Write, write -- 'I just wanta give it my best shot and, Good Lord willing, things'll work out." --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that while looking into Bob Dole, I found that referring to yourself in the third person repeatedly has a name: Illeism. Weird. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some interviewers do the same thing. David Frost was notorious for it. At the end of a 20-minute interview with Joe Bloggs, he'd round it off with a question like "So, what does the future hold in store for Joe Bloggs?", as if he were asking a third party. I always yearned to become famous enough to be interviewed by him, just so that when he asked me this question, I could ejaculate "Well, why don't you bloody well go and ask him!". Btw, I'd argue that it's quite different from using the royal plural ("we are not amused"), which I see has latterly been renamed Majestic plural. That is an example of the use of the first person plural, whereas this question is about the use of the third person singular. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it originate with psychology techniques? Channel jumping one night, I saw people (possibly therapists) talking to a young female with her in the third person and sometimes she answered that way or in the first. Ewwwish. Didn't stay to find out more. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it because they understand that they are a brand name? Itsmejudith (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also odd is I've encountered academic papers that are coauthored by two people, when they cite a previous paper the pair coauthored they say "X and Y said Z" rather than "We said Z". When I asked one of the authors he said it was just some tradition he'd picked up.--droptone (talk) 12:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's sounds dreadful but it is also difficult to know how to word it if you coauthor a paper and want to refer to previous work that one of you did with different coauthors. You end up with locutions like "one of the present coauthors, Smith, in a paper written together with Patel and Johnson, argued that....". Itsmejudith (talk) 16:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may've been unclear. It was Smith and Johnson (for example) referring to another paper written by, the same, Smith and Johnson.--droptone (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's somewhat traditional to use passive voice and avoid any first person mentions in scientific papers. (Why? I'm not sure, but I think it has to do with the fact that science is supposed to be observer independent.) Thus you'll see the third person mentions of previous papers instead of using the first person pronouns, as there is no way to passive voice it. I think there is some truth in Itsmejudith's remarks too - while saying "we" may work with papers by just Smith & Johnson, how do you handle the case later in the paper when referencing Smith, Johnson & Patel? Or how about Smith and Patel (without Johnson)? For consistency sake, it makes sense to refer to all authors in the third person. (For what it's worth, in the context of scientific papers, I find third person/passive voice neither odd nor dreadful, and actually find first person pronouns harsh and jarring.) -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 01:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say speaking in the third person is a method of being distinct and attracting attention. One would expect a speaker to use "I", so not doing so would be out-of-the-ordinary. --Bowlhover (talk) 16:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artist Unknown[edit]

I have a painting signed by A. Bouvier and i cannot locate said artist on Wikipedia,google,ect. any help ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigskimarche (talk • contribs) 03:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Augustus Jules Bouvier? Gwinva (talk) 03:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+ there's also Armand Bouvier, Andre Bouvier, Arthur Bouvier and Agnes Rose Bouvier. Gwinva (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youth Perception of Human Security in Africa[edit]

Bold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.100.68.103 (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean how do young people perceive human security in Africa? If so, are you interested in the views of African young people or young people in other parts of the world? Itsmejudith (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or perceptions vis-a-vis realities?--Wetman (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

China Government[edit]

Can China be considered both a republic and a communistic society? If so, is China more of a Communis society than a republic? tyvm DancingRobotek9 (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)(UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DancingRobotek9 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be confusing the terms republic and democracy. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no, i ment republic because China is known as the "People's Republic of China" and i was wondering if china was actually considered a republic rather than a communist society DancingRobotek9 (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by DancingRobotek9 (talk • contribs) 21:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic means that it is not a monarchy (~~or a theocracy~~). It has no bearing on any political ideology of parties in government or any basic credo of the populace at large. The UK, e.g., is NOT a republic. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One thing is the organization and classification of a national government, its laws and economic theory, but another thing is the society of a country. To mix the two is very unwise. Flamarande (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Yes. (2) No. See Republic and Communism. Xn4 21:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we have the diagram again? Please? 86.141.89.124 (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found it!

The democracy/republic chart[edit]

	Republics	Monarchies
Democratic	Italy, USA	Canada, Netherlands
Not democratic	Cuba, Turkmenistan	Saudi Arabia, Nepal

Mwalcoff 02:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the version here, although it's been posted several times. 86.141.89.124 (talk) 00:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date now, because of recent developments in Nepal. Brunei is a suitable replacement in the chart. /Kriko (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Duly noted for future use! 86.141.89.124 (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free Medical Treatment in UK?[edit]

Does the UK give full free medical treatment to everybody? regardless of their condition? i was looking up some stuff about the NHS in Europe, and they said stuff about free treatment.

For example, if a person ended up in a horrible automobile accident, would the government pay for his surgeries and his treatments? cuz i know that surgeries and the stuff the hospital has to do to treat this guy could costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.

If it is free treatment, where does the money come from?

Thanks [: —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedHoTriCE (talk • contribs) 19:45, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article about this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_the_United_Kingdom u should search for topics before asking DancingRobotek9 (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the reason i asked this question is because i heard from a friend who lived in the UK. I showed him that wikipedia article, and he claimed that he's known people who have gone through multiple surgeries because he was hit by a car. He lived, and didnt pay anything. Thats quite a lot of money, and im pretty sure general taxes dont cover mulitple surgeries for everybody. my question was to see if anybody knew exactly what was going on with the health care rule, because people get into automobile accidents everyday. if the government has to completely cover MRIs and mulitple surgeries every day, that cant be covered by "general taxation" (as the wikipedia page states) can it? I dont appreciate the cynical answer, DancingRobotek9. Obviously it is easier to type "UK health care" into the search bar than to log in and type up the question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedHoTriCE (talk • contribs) 20:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The UK's National Health Service is, in essence, a lot like a big US HMO, albeit with no caps and no copay. Treatment is allocated strictly according to clinical need (where comparative clinical need is assessed using hideously complex and sometimes rather handwavey criteria). You never "max out" in the way you can in the US system. But the NHS has a finite budget; so the trusts and hospitals and departments that comprise it all have finite budgets. So if you need treatment they put you on a queue (which queue depends partially on your prognosis and the severity of your condition). Patients are removed from the queue and treated according to the available resources; sometimes the wait is too long and contributes to the patient's death. For stuff that's important but not time-critical (like hip replacement) you can wait a long time (months and months). Like all healthcare systems, treatment is rationed because resources are finite - but those resources are pooled and allocated on a clinical basis. Contrary to what many people believe, the UK spends less per capita on healthcare than the US does, and Britons live longer. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify that, the UK government spends less per capita on healthcare than the US government does. That ignores the amount spent by US corporations and private citizens. Algebraist 21:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a greater disparity than I thought - according to the 2002 World Bank statistics shown here, US spend (indeed, government and private) was USD 4,271 per person per year, and the UK's (again government and private, although government is a much higher proportion) was USD 1,675 -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to "everybody", the answer is "no". British residents (essentially those who are part of the tax/ni system, whether they actually pay in or not) are eligible (I'm pretty sure British citizens who live abroad are not, and can't jet in from abroad and get expensive procedures). EU/EEA citizens (and residents too, I think) get treatment via the EHIC scheme if they fall ill when visiting the UK (but can't travel to the UK to seek treatment). Everyone else has to pay full price (but they won't deny treatment for urgent conditions based on inability to pay). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally you may be interested in reading around QUALYs (quality of life years) and how NICE (National Institut of Clinical Excellent) use them. There are far more treatments available in the wider-healthcare sector than within the nhs. As you note it is - by and large - free at the point of entry. It is not free in all circumstances, and there are limiations of what is and isn't covered, but for the majority of people who are UK residents the treatment is covered by the state (which obviously is funded by the people). Contrary to a mildly popular myth National Insurance contributions are not kept separate and used purely for the nhs, the funding for the nhs comes from the central budget and its budget is not set by the amount brought in from National Insurance contributions. I think it may be Malaysia or Sri Lanka that have the medical-system funding setup that many nations are interested in copying/implementing - that is a hybrid of public (state) and private (individual) funding using quite a clever system (low-cost you pay for yourself, higher cost is state covered, you are required to put money into a pot and you can use that pot to pay for treatment but for high-cost surgery the government pay most/all of it - it's a bit complicated but supposedly works well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.221.133.226 (talk) 10:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To go back to the example in the original post, yes if you are a British citizen and you are involved in a serious vehicle accident all your treatment will be free. And emergency care is of good quality, no waiting if your symptoms are urgent. While you are in hospital you receive free care and meals, although the meals are usually not of excellent quality. If you had facial injuries you would be entitled to plastic surgery to repair them, although the final stages might not be offered, or there might be a long delay. Once out of hospital you would start to pay a fixed prescription charge for each item of medication. The main gaps in the free health coverage are in dental care and eye care. We pay from our taxes. Income tax and national insurance contributions are the ones people whinge about most, but everyone also pays VAT. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I certainly had no complaints about the food when I was in hospital for a week with a broken leg about 4 years ago. Whether you pay prescription charges depends on a) how old you are (nobody under 18, I think, pays, nor does anyone over 80, and if you're likely to need a lot of prescriptions it's possible to buy a pre-paid certificate for any number of prescriptions in 6 months or a year, thus capping the total amount you need pay), and b) where you are - nobody in Wales pays any prescription charges at all. -- Arwel (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, it is British residents that get free NHS treatment, regardless whether they are British citizens, as Finlay McWalter makes clear above. An American resident in the UK should get free NHS treatment. As a counter-example I am a British citizen but I am not resident in the UK, so I do not get free NHS treatment. Instead I am registered in another European Union country's health system (also free at point of entry) where I am resident. I would need to get an EHIC card before traveling to the UK before I could be entitled to free NHS treatment. As has been said this excludes prescriptions, replacement bandages and minor items required after leaving the hospital.-84user (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW the basic flaw in your premise appears to be the assumption everyone is going to need multiple surgeries. In reality they are not. Nil Einne (talk) 15:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civil War Myths?[edit]

I remember back in one of my history classes, my teacher told me something like the North new the coordinates of the Southern troops for the Battle of Antietam because the North found a discarded cigar box with a map of the South's war plans wrapped around it. Now, I know my memory may have compromised the details, but I am sure there was some strange story about a discarded cigar box. Has anyone ever heard this story? Is it true or just a myth? I also remember something about a different battle started over a pair of shoes. Any validity to that? Thanks!--El aprendelenguas (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't nothing about a war beginning over a pair of shoes but your teacher was almost assuredly talking about the Special Order 191. Flamarande (talk) 21:31, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 'shoe' battle is almost certainly Gettysburg. The Confederate infantry suposedly marched into the town of Gettysburg itself in search of a shoe factory, thus beginning one of the great battles of the Civil War. This is now considered to be a myth, first appearing in the memoirs of Henry Heth. Emma Dashwood (talk) 22:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert E. Lee issued Special Order 191 for troop mevements shortly before the Battle of Antietam [1] September 9, 1862. It stated that he was dividing his army into three pieces, gave their routes of travel and timing of attacks. It was found 10 a.m. on September 13, 1862 by Union soldiers, in an envelope wrapped around 3 cigars. Soon it was in the hands of Union General George B. McClellan, and was of material help in the battle. Confederate General D.H. Hill was the only man known to smoke cigars and who might have had access to the orders. Hill said he never received the orders. Another theory is that an adjutant of Lee left them to be found as an act of treason. McClellan did not fully exploit this militaryt intelligence because he suspected it was a trick. The Wikipedia article on Special Order 191 also speculates the found orders might have been a copy sent to Hill by Thomas J. Jackson, butthat does not squarewith the orders being signed by Robert H. Chilton, Lee's adjutant. Edison (talk) 14:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]