Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2014 June 23

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.

June 23

NHS Constitution

At the end of a rabbit trail of link-following, I found myself at http://www.nhs.uk/choiceintheNHS/Rightsandpledges/NHSConstitution/Pages/Overview.aspx, a document discussing the NHS Constitution for England. I was confused by the following statement:

No government can change the Constitution without the full involvement of staff, patients and the public. The Constitution is a promise that the NHS will always be there for you.

How does this relate to parliamentary sovereignty? Couldn't a new act simply amend the can't-amend piece of the constitution, enabling amendments at will? Or are they meaning it informally, summarising the fact that it would be highly unpopular politically to make amendments without popular agreement? Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it could. However, this change would be made by Parliament rather than the Government - the legislature rather than the executive. The Health Act 2009 requires the Secretary of State for Health to "have regard to" the NHS Constitution, so limits the power of the Government, but it doesn't limit the power of Parliament to amend or repeal the Act. Tevildo (talk) 01:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the Government are generally able to do whatever they want, I thought that this meant that the government wouldn't be able to announce pending changes without popular input. So without this Constitution or comparable provision, would the Secretary of State for Health be able to make massive changes to (or abolish completely) the NHS? Nyttend (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

That is exactly what has happened with the passing of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It's important (in this context) to distinguish between the Government as the executive arm of the State, and the Government as the party which commands a parliamentary majority. As Secretary of State for Health, Jeremy Hunt's powers are limited by the relevant statutes, so he can't abolish the NHS, and if he wants to close a hospital, there are elaborate procedures he has to follow, which are subject to judicial review if someone disagrees with his actions. However, as MP for South West Surrey, he can (and probably would) vote for a bill to abolish the NHS, if one is proposed. It's reasonable to describe such a bill as a "government bill", but it would be proposed by the Government sensu latu as the majority party, not by the Government sensu stricto as the executive branch. Tevildo (talk) 18:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Tevildo; that's far more understandable. As an American who's read a bunch, I'm aware of terminology and some general processes in what we Americans would call the UK government, but the unwritten and informal stuff often confuses me. I figured there was more interworking between Cabinet and <insert term embracing the various executive agencies, comparable to Cabinet-level departments in the USA> than apparently there is, but on the other hand, I still don't have a good idea of the ex officio authority each member of the government has in a department. After all, if the government decide to do whatever in a specific realm (let's say something analogous to the USVA), I figured they could influence the other MPs to carry out that decision; presumably Mr Hunt has less influence as SW Surrey's MP than he does as the relevant minister with a voice in government decisions. [I'm afraid this will sound offensive. It's not meant to!] Everything in a parliamentary government just seems to occupy a grey zone between "party leadership determines everything" as seen in the USSR versus the much looser parties in the USA, where intransigent legislators won't be given such severe punishment. Nyttend (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You may find Delegated legislation in the United Kingdom and Statutory Instrument (UK) relevant (I hesitate to say "interesting") reading. Most of a Minister's work doesn't involve primary legislation (Acts of Parliament), although they'll usually have some input into the content of an Act. Normally, when they need to perform a major executive function under their statutory powers, they'll create an SI - this has the status of legislation (most importantly, Parliament has to vote on it), but it's done in their capacity as a member of the executive, and therefore still has to be in accordance with the relevant primary legislation; the courts have the power to decide whether the SI has been properly generated, and overturn it if it hasn't. The courts have no such power over primary legislative acts. Tevildo (talk) 23:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Why does Macbeth succeed King Duncan in Macbeth

In Shakespeare's Macbeth, Macbeth kills King Duncan. Then, Duncan's two sons flee from Scotland in fear of their lives. How (and why) is it exactly that Macbeth himself becomes the next king, upon Duncan's death? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Macbeth was the next closest relative of the king. It's a bit of a stretch (Duncan's sons aren't physically present, but they're still alive), but that's what makes Shakespeare fun. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. But, where did we get that information from (that Macbeth was the next closest relative of the king)? From the play itself? Or from actual ("real-life") history? What was Macbeth's relationship to Duncan (e.g., nephew, cousin)? It is a stretch that they "passed over" both sons (who aren't physically present, but are still alive). Of course, that is necessary to advance the plot. But, also, the two sons were suspected of being their Dad's (Duncan's) murderers. Does the commission of murder bar one from succession? I have no idea, but I would think so. No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Shakespeare based his information on Holinshed. The historical Macbeth was Duncan's first cousin, both being grandsons of Malcolm II - see Duncan I of Scotland, Macbeth, King of Scotland, and House of Dunkeld for our relevant articles. Tevildo (talk) 01:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that, historically at the time of the events Shakespeare was documenting, the principle of primogeniture was not fully ensconced in the inheritance of thrones in European tradition. The eldest son was often consider a strong candidate for inheritance of a title or throne, but it was by no means so expected as to be thought of as automatic. In the 11th century, gaining the throne by right of conquest (or to hold said throne in the face of the threat of conquest) was seen as a valid means of justifying one's right to rule. If you look to both France and England during the 10th-12th centuries, you find many examples of the throne passing to people other than the eldest son of the last monarch; being a member of the prior king's family seems to have been somewhat of a requirement, but it would not have been unusual for Duncan's sons to have been passed over for a more distant relative who showed more leadership qualities. --Jayron32 03:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

In this particular case, why were the two sons passed over? Was it due to their being strong suspects in the murder? Would that be "enough" to bar their succession? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

There wasn't any "barring" anything. Macbeth was eligible, present, and had support of the nobility. That was enough in the 11th century to be declared king. That the throne did not pass to Duncan's sons automatically would not have been thought out of place, as that they were his sons was not considered a means to automatically grant him the throne upon Duncan's death. According to the Wikipedia article, Macbeth was declared king, and no one much argued. It would not have been seen as unusual; he did defeat the former king in battle, he did display the qualities necessary for a leader, and had the backing of enough of the nobility to be so crowned. The whole point is that you're viewing the ascension of Macbeth to the throne through the lens of a principle (primogeniture) that simply did not exist in Scotland at the time (if it even existed at all in other parts of Europe, it was only tenuously so). Of note, however, is that Duncan's sons did both rule in turn after Macbeth; Malcolm Canmore (future king Malcolm III), with the aid of the English. However, Malcolm did not inherit said throne despite his defeating Macbeth. The Scottish nobility offered the throne to Lulach, a member of a powerful noble family. Malcolm had to defeat Lulach as well before he was deemed worthy of the crown... --Jayron32 04:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

More: If you really want to understand how little primogeniture meant in Scotland at the time, look though the list at List of Scottish monarchs from the first kings until the Scottish Wars of Independence. Most of the house of Dunkeld (Canmore) before David I passed from brother to brother (often, though not always, after considerable fighting and war) even when the dead king had living sons, more often than not one of the kings brothers or cousins had the means to take the throne by force, and often did, despite the existence of said sons. Indeed the Macbeth/Duncan feud at the start of the 11th century was pretty much the norm for how the throne of Scotland passed around among the various members of the House of Dunkeld. --Jayron32 04:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I have absolutely no knowledge of the historical facts behind this play. I am simply going on the play itself and its text. (Obviously, Shakespeare often conveniently deviated from "true" history when it served his purposes as a playwright. He rewrote history as it suited him.) You are making a lot of leaps, when you make all these claims about Macbeth, his strong support from the nobility, and so forth (unless you are getting that from true history and not from the play's text). I don't see any of that in the text of the play at all. In fact, the play mentions absolutely nothing about his succession to the throne. There is the scene in which Duncan is murdered. Then, there are perhaps one or two minor intervening scenes. And, at the end of the next scene, someone (Macduff?) says "Are you going to Scone for Macbeth's coronation?" (or something to that effect). So, there is no discussion or action (in the play) about this topic. He just gets elevated to being king, just like that. In the scene where that someone (Macduff?) mentions the coronation, there is a side conversation. Someone asks "Did they determine who killed Duncan?" and another character replies "Yes, it was the king's chamberlains." The other character asks "Why on earth would the two chamberlains have any reason to kill the king?" And the other character says "He was bribed by the king's sons, who wanted the throne. They have fled the country, so suspicion is strong on them." So, in the text of the play, this implies that the sons were passed over due to the suspicion of them being murderers. Also, at one point early on in the play, Macbeth is told that he is getting "another even greater honor" from the king. (The first honor was that Macbeth received the title Thane of Cawdor.) Macbeth is hoping/thinking that he will be awarded the title Prince of Cumberland, which is a stepping stone to becoming king. However, in a brief scene, King Duncan makes an important public announcement in which he bestows the title of Prince of Cumberland upon his son. Macbeth is upset by this and basically says "this is a step that will become an obstacle to me or a step that I must o'erleap if I want the crown." So, the play strongly suggests that the older son is next in line for the crown and he does not get it due to his (supposed) complicity in the murder. Once again, I am going only by the text of the play, not by any historical facts that may or may not have been altered in the play. (Tangentially, the "even greater honor" that Duncan bestows upon Macbeth was that Duncan invited himself over to be a guest at Macbeth's – and Lady Macbeth's – castle at Inverness.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If you want to know what happens in the play, read the play. If the play doesn't tell you the answer, then the question is unanswerable using the text of the play. If you want to know about the historical figures themselves, Wikipedia is a good place to start. --Jayron32 06:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I am reading the play. I was confused as to how Macbeth became king. I was confused as to why the sons did not. Hence, my question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Insofar as Shakespeare based the situations in his play on certain historical events, understanding said historical events may be helpful. Insofar as, in history, Macbeth became King before Duncan's sons did, the same thing happened in the play. --Jayron32 22:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

In Act I, scene 7, Macbeth says he is Duncan's kinsman. Then after Duncan and the guards are killed, and Duncan's sons flee, there is an expository conversation between Ross and MacDuff in Act 2, scene 4, explaining that Macbeth is the next closest kin and he has already been named king. Also Duncan's sons are not considered candidates to succeed Duncan because they fled and are suspected of being the real murderers (whereas in the previous scene, they explain - but only to themselves - that they are fleeing out of fear for their own lives). So it's not really stated how Macbeth is the next closest relative, he just is. Shakespeare evidently did not think the details were important, you just need to know that he is next in line.

By the way, strict rules of succession may not have been important in 11th century Scotland, but they certainly were in Shakespeare's time. If Macbeth dates from 1606, then James I had just become king 3 years earlier (and he was of course also James VI of Scotland). Everyone would have certainly remembered the problems with finding a successor to the childless Elizabeth. It's glossed over in the play but it was an issue that would have been on everyone's mind. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I will have to go review those scenes more closely. Much of that sounds familiar, but I do not remember some of the specific details that you mention. Thanks. I will go have a look again. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Succession issues, specifically the question of how succession should proceed in the event a monarch's eldest son predeceased him, were the main cause of the Wars of the Roses, still remembered in Shakespeare's day as a corrosive nightmare. The Tudors' main claim to legitimacy was to have put wars of succession to an end for England, and of course Elizabeth was a Tudor. As to Scotland in the 11th century, however, there were rules for succession, and they were not based on primogeniture. These rules are referred to as tanistry, and they involved a kind of election within the ruling clan. Since there was an element of uncertainty and conflict to the selection of the heir, disputes over succession could become violent, which was one reason that polities that adopted primogeniture, such as England and France, were better able to develop centralized monarchical power and thus to dominate neighboring polities without primogeniture. Their success and their relative internal order in turn increased the legitimacy and attractiveness of primogeniture as a system. Marco polo (talk) 13:25, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

A nation of pirates

I'm pretty sure I saw an article on Wikipedia not too long ago (and no, I don't think it was a hoax) about a short-lived and semi-legendary nation founded sometime in the late eighteenth or early nineteenth century by European pirates, possibly in southern Africa. At first I thought the name was Piratica, but that seems to refer to a fantasy novel series, and I now seem to remember the name incorporating the Latin liber root (implying freedom). Am I imagining this? Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

If you are, so is Wikipedia: Libertatia. It is "possibly fictional". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's it! Thanks! Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Fascinating. Do note that Madagascar is legendarily rugged and remote... and indeed, the site of the colony centers on the region which the article says is most inhabited by the Tsimihety people, who by our description seem to have the potential to have inspired such ideals as theirs. I would not rule out that this society, or a better one, may indeed exist, in some sense, to this day. Wnt (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
• @Evanh2008: Indeed, on further examination, it appears that the Tsimihety are held by one researcher not to have been known in Madagascar before the 1800s, and even said by elders to have originated from shipwrecked white sailors in the region of Ivongo (Mananara, Maroantsetra, or Nosi Mangabe). [1] to page 18 or so. Unfortunately Wikipedia is bouncing me all over the place with these names, but they are probably within the region indicated for the "pirate utopia". I would take quite seriously now that this is indeed a living nation, with some aspects in common with the myth (though there are some feet of clay, e.g. this source suggests that not holding claim to land was a condition of asylum, so maybe not an economic resolution, though the ability of the villages to melt away when authority shows up is nonetheless apparently very powerful). Wnt (talk) 05:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

People who leave the Jehovah's Witness denomination and become Atheists

Jehovah's Witnesses are known not to celebrate Christmas or birthdays. When people leave the denomination and become nonreligious or atheists, they may be free to celebrate whatever holiday they want, perhaps the mainstream holidays like Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, birthdays, and if marrying into a Hispanic family, may celebrate Saint days. Are there case studies or surveys on the lives of Jehovah's Witness atheist apostates? Do they adopt mainstream cultural holidays, or do they still not observe those holidays? What about using mainstream Christian symbols of the cross? Do these atheists identify Christianity by the Latin cross or by the Jehovah's Witness stake or watchtower? 140.254.136.160 (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Your survey questions might find answers at a forum for ex-Jehovah's witnesses or this UK network for former JWs. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 11:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Jehovah's Witnesses have published a warning at http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102012169?q=Internet+false+information&p=par.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The UK network mentioned appears to have a very strong, probably evangelical, Christian bias, so would probably be of little assistance in respect of ex-JW atheists. But it would be interesting to find the answer. --rossb (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

OSHA inspections

I know the general process in an OSHA inspection is for the inspector to approach the front desk, present credentials, ask to speak with the person in charge, hold an opening conference, walk through the work place with the employer and employee representatives, and hold a closing conference, but it seems that certain factors might require different handling, and I'm curious if anyone knows, for example:

• What happens in the case of a private outsourcing company like Sodexo or Aramark in a school, hospital, jail, or other institution? I assume they approach the front desk of the institution and ask for the representative of that company, is that correct?
• For that matter, if they are investigating a complaint focused on a single department in a hospital or similar facility, and that department wasn't outsourced, would they ask to speak with the administrator of the hospital, or just the head of the department in question?
• What do they do in places where there is no conference room, like construction sites and small restaurants with only a small manager's office and no break area? In the case of the latter, would they hold the opening and closing conferences in the tiny manager's office or would they hold them in the dining area in front of customers?

Just curious. 71.3.57.40 (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

How tough is Cthulhu?

Why is Cthulhu considered so powerful if all it takes to defeat him (in the original Call of Cthulhu story) is piece of jagged wood through the gut?

I recently read the wonderful A Colder War by Mr. Stross, and in that story (SPOILER ALERT) Cthulhu is awakened; the military then deploys a huge arsenal of nuclear weapons against the creature to no effect.

From this can we conclude: 1) that Stross was not being entirely faithful to Lovecraft's conception of Cthulhu's powers? 2) that in Stross's universe Cthulhu COULD have been defeated with a large splintered peace of wood, but it never occurred to the army to try that approach 3) that the Stross and Lovecraft universes are consistent but some iterations or versions of Cthulhu are more powerful than others, depending on mystical crap like the way the stars are aligned?

Your thoughts? Also, how hard is Cthulhu to defeat in other stories in the mythos?--24.228.94.244 (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC) To whoever deleted this question, this a LITERATURE question having to do with the nature of a mythical monster. It is no different from asking a question about the Greek hydra or the fish that ate Jonah in the bible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.94.244 (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. You yourself found proof that Cthulhu is depicted in a variety of contradictory ways, leading to any such "facts" like you're asking for really just being personal opinions on what's canonical for Cthulhu and what isn't. If you want to draw comparisons to the Hydra or Jonah's fish, then sticking with only the original source material of Lovecraft himself, you answered your question and then presented some later author's opinion to try and get other editor's opinions. If you doubt me, interpreting literature is pretty much the core of my degree, and a continued hobby. You are looking for opinions on this topic, even if you don't get it. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

This is utter nonsense. The question isn't whether or not Stross's story is "canonical". It's a factual based question about what stories have been written. I don't care whether the stories about Cthulhu are canonical according to some wikipedian's opinions. My question is, across all the LITERATURE (ie Cthulhu stories by Lovecraft and others) that exist, how powerful/tough is the creature depicted, and how easily can the creature be defeated. This is not a forum-type question calling for speculation and opinions, but question that can be answered via research and facts about the contents of stories that have been written.--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 00:22, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Really, you're just demonstrating a complete ignorance of the topic. If we go by South Park, Cthulhu can be defeated by a kid dressed up as a bad cereal idea. If we go by the old webcomic "Hello Cthulhu," Cthulhu can be defeated with hugs and cookies. If we go by August Derleth's stories, Cthulhu is defeated by white magic. If we go by Lovecraft's own stories, Cthulhu isn't truly magical but an alien from a part of the universe where physics operates differently from ours. If we go by The Real Ghostbusters, Cthulhu can be defeated by a lightning strike. If we go by the Chaosium BRP, TSR AD&D, Chaosium D20, or Paizo Pathfinder depictions, there's vastly different stats and capabilities (it's not even a matter of system translation, the Chaosium D20 Cthulhu and the Paizo Pathfinder Cthulhu can fight each other with no real conversion, though it wouldn't be a fair fight at all). Every writer has used Cthulhu in a completely different fashion.

The only possible answer that isn't an opinion is "whatever story you're reading is right," which makes it impossible to actually give an answer as to how tough Cthulhu is. To go into any deeper detail would just be listing stories Cthulhu's appeared in (which is Wikia's job), or would require editor opinion as to canonicity. Even Daniel Harms in his old FAQ doesn't try to nail down how one could answer this question.

This question is on par with "Could Sherlock Holmes beat Superman in a fight to the death?" Yes, there's plenty of material written about both of them to assess their strengths, but that doesn't make it a valid question for this site. And if I was wrong to close it, why didn't you answer the question? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I object to the characterization of Mintberry Crunch as a "bad cereal idea", but agree with the rest. Even The Great Khali became a wimp, in the wrong writers' hands. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It appears this question has been sufficiently answered: Different writers will put different spins on a given character. One burning question is how a word like Cthulhu would be pronounced. One could probably find it in the same dictionary as Mr. Mxyzptlk and Joe Btfsplk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Lovecraft said that the spelling is an attempt to write sounds that humans can't make. My personal pronunciation is a bit like a person gargling. Looie496 (talk) 01:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

It's really not hard to say /'kθu:lu:/ or /'kθu:lhu:/. Aren't those the obvious pronunciations? Apparently not what Lovecraft intended, given what he wrote, but just looking at it, why wouldn't you read it that way?

Of course the /kθ/ cluster doesn't occur at the start of the word in English, and perhaps not at the end either — the only examples I can think of are medial, like in "blackthorn". But it isn't hard to say, once you get over the surprise factor. --Trovatore (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, just realized it can occur at the end of a word in English, in words like "length", /lɛŋkθ/. Still can't think of an example where it follows a vowel, though. --Trovatore (talk) 05:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

In The Call of Cthulhu Lovecraft wrote: "There had been a slight earthquake tremor the night before, the most considerable felt in New England for some years; and Wilcox's imaginations had been keenly affected. Upon retiring, he had had an unprecedented dream of great Cyclopean cities of Titan blocks and sky-flung monoliths, all dripping with green ooze and sinister with latent horror. Hieroglyphics had covered the walls and pillars, and from some undetermined point below had come a voice that was not a voice; a chaotic sensation which only fancy could transmute into sound, but which he attempted to render by the almost unpronounceable jumble of letters, "Cthulhu fhtagn"." Looie496 (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I acknowledged what you said about Lovecraft intending to transcribe an unpronceable sound. I'm just saying, I don't think the sequence of letters cthulhu is particularly hard to pronounce, whether Lovecraft thought so or not. --Trovatore (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

True. Anyone who has the word "chthonic" in their vocabulary would not baulk at "Cthulhu". They're relatively easy to "pronce".  :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 01:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• My reading of Lovecraft's story (a long time ago...) is that Cthulhu was not "defeated", only damaged enough to allow the people involved to escape. Cthulhu was capable of reconstituting, and was visibly doing so as they fled. What ultimately saved humanity, in the story, was the sinking of R'lyeh back into the ocean. Cthulhu ftagn!. Looie496 (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I googled "Cthulhu ftagn" and Amazon offers a cthulhu for $20. I wonder how powerful a $20 item can be... - ¡Ouch! (^{hurt me} / _{more pain}) 12:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Shewt, they'll sell you a shiny new Necronomicon for a pound less a pence. They sure don't make 'em like they used to. :) Wnt (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Massive differences in prices for the same item, the psychological aspect

I was looking at this listing on eBay, for example, and see prices varying from $3.97 to $68.44. I suppose there are even more extreme price ranges out there. Why would anyone pay over 17 times the amount they could get the same book for? 75.75.42.89 (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the very site you linked, the $3.97 book is in "acceptable" condition, while the $68.44 book is in "Brand new" condition. The 3.97 book has writing in the margins, and could have other problems such as a cracked spine or loose (but not yet missing) pages. The $68.44 book is in brand new condition, possibly still in the original shrinkwrap. In effect, they are not the same item. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly what I was going to say. I use eBay all the time, and I notice the same wide price discrepancies on all sorts of items. And, 9 times out of 10, the difference in price is based on the condition of the item. The other 1 time out of 10 is usually a "new" seller who doesn't really have a good handle on the worth of his item (i.e., they overprice it, thinking that it is worth more than it really is). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Even though the example given was not a good one, there are cases where massive price differences exist for the same item, in the same condition. For example, US pharmaceuticals can cost far less when sold abroad or sold for animal use. And the same seat on a US flight can vary dramatically in price, too, depending on who you buy it from. The psychological effect is that those paying the higher price feel they are being "ripped off". I'm not sure they take this into account when setting such prices, that the result will be many disgruntled customers, who may well go elsewhere. Setting a consistent, moderate price might improve customer satisfaction considerably.

And, in some cases, price differences may be a form of illegal discrimination, where a car dealer offers customers of the "right" race, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc., a much better price, while those he doesn't like must pay the MSRP. This also applies to real estate agents, car mechanics, or any item where the price is negotiated after meeting the customer. I've often thought such haggling should be made illegal, to eliminate this potential abuse, and all prices should be set in advance. StuRat (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure about Ebay, but there are known issues with bots changing prices on Amazon [2] [3]. One way this can happen is if two (or more) bots both have the policy to put their price $0.01 above (or below) the current highest (or lowest) price. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Expensive booze and pills always taste better to some people. Terry O'Reilly explains it (and other tricks) in far more detail. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That is a very good article by O'Reilly, and I was thinking about wine pricing even before reading it. I have lived in the Napa Valley for 22 years, and know many people in the wine business. Worldwide wine production quality and consistency standards have increased dramatically in the last 40 years. In other words, "cheap" wines these days are almost as good as very expensive wines. Often, the less expensive wine is better in blind tasting than more expensive wines. But the marketing, the cachet, the reputation, the image, the status can justify a price difference of $20 to $50 a bottle, or more. Think of two almost identical vineyards, with an arbitrary county line separating them. The grapes on the Napa County side of the line will command a price three times higher than those grown on the Solano County side of that arbitrary line. It is all about image. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)