Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 January 14

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

January 14

How much Prime Healthcare Services bought each of their hospitals?

Hello, I am doing research about Prime Healthcare Services and got a lot of information from article from your site. I know when Prime bought each hospital and from who. However, I need to include how much each hospitals was bought for by Prime Healthcare Services. Please guide me on how to go about finding this answer. I seems like Prime Healthcare Services buy most or all of their hospitals throught bankruptcy but I don't know how to get information on the purchase price. Please help.

Thank you very much.

Do you have a reason to believe that the prices are public knowledge? I would be surprised if they were. --ColinFine (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Concur. It could indeed prove quite difficult to obtain such information, as the purchase contracts (or whatever appropriate documentation) probably also include confidentiality clauses. And be wary - if they are not obliged (be it by letter of law or however else) to disclose such information, they probably won't. --Ouro (blah blah) 18:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I thought that when someone buy or sell a property, and in the case a big thing like a hospital, there should be a place where we can see the value it sold for. I thought it will would be the same like a house since we can find out what year it was sold and for how much. I read many articles about Prime and saw that many times the writer disclosed the price but it wasn't how much Prime bought it for but how much the seller bought it for before it had to sell to Prime. I am pretty much run out of idea on where to look so if anyone have any idea please let me know. Thank you very much.

Question about Japanese celebrities

I asked this question a few months ago (as an IP) but I did not get any relevant answers, so I'm asking it again. Why do a particularly large number of Japanese celebrities not disclose their ages? Examples are Yuko Goto, Mami Kawada and KOTOKO. If it's for privacy then I can understand, and will respect it, but why does this practice seem to be particularly common in Japan? Do they view privacy differently from the West? I know this practice isn't restricted to Japan, here in the Philippines, there are a number of celebrities who do just that, but almost none of them are super-famous or really that mainstream, and in the US, there have been many cases of such practice -– to my knowledge, Andy Warhol's date of birth (and most information about his early life) was mot known until after his death. Why is the practice so common in Japan? And like last last time, only give examples of Japanese celebrities; no Western celebrities. Also, where other countries is this practice widespread? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:45, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe ageism is legal in Japan. Unverified source Maybe it's even worse in the entertainment sector than in the regular working world. Not that the studio execs couldn't easily learn the age of the star, but if Japanese citizens who buy movie tickets knew such-and-such was actually over 30, they would be less likely to buy a ticket. I don't know at all if that theory has much credibility, not being familiar with Japanese culture myself, but it's a thought. 69.243.220.115 (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with ageism, as in whether they could get fired or forced to retire at a certain age. For one, they have to provide ID when applying for a job or applying for the training a lot of them get (acting, singing, etc.) - and the ID will have the date of birth on - their agents or managers and colleagues will know their ages, and they also have birthday parties, same as everyone else. Secondly, there are plenty of celebrities who are in their 70s and 80s, etc., way beyond the normal retirement age. It is most surely for privacy reasons, and nothing more. Their ages are just not disclosed to the public, because frankly, it's none of our business, in the same way as if you went to a bank, you wouldn't expect the teller to tell you how old she was. Also, in Japan, certain ages have a certain significance. 20, for example, is considered to be when people become an adult. 30, for ladies, has always had a connotation of 'if she has not had a baby yet, she never will'. If people knew their ages, there would be endless gossip on the variety shows and women's magazines, detracting from the job they actually do. They want privacy, because they are doing a job. Also, all three of our articles that the OP gave as examples have their dates of birth right there. If we can find out this information, I am sure the Japanese can. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Their ages are not disclosed on their Japanese Wikipedia articles, and the years given on our articles may or may not be made up (Kotoko's year of birth apparently really is 1980, but I can't confirm Kawada or Goto's years of birth in reliable sources). It's not like all Japanese Wikipedia articles don't have their year of birth: Rie Kugimiya's year of birth (1979) is given on her Japanese article, and so is Aya Hirano's (1987). Articles we do have that don't disclose their year of births include Mell and Kaori Utatsuki. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

There are cultural differences about which things are considered private. Many Japanese celebrities publish their blood type. Blood types in Japanese culture#Current popularity says: "On Japanese Wikipedia, blood type is among the first attributes listed in the infoboxes for celebrities, frequently between birthdate and birthplace." I'm not sure Wikipedia is the best example to mention in a Wikipedia article. The English Wikipedia also mentions the blood type of many Japanese, but apparently not in the infobox. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Their blood type is publicly announced because of a Japanese idea (actually only from just slightly previous to WW2, and not based on any traditional thinking whatsoever) about a connection between blood type and personality traits, and the public love to know these things. These people work in the entertainment industry, where personality is very important. This idea has spread to other Asian countries. It was designed by the Japanese military, because blood stocks were low, so people with rarer types (such as O - rare in the Japanese) would be kept for government work or officer work, while people with much more usual types (such as A - more common in the Japanese) would be used as infantry, etc. This was developed into a myth that permeated more and more into Japanese society and even industry, to a certain extent, on a par with the zodiac. I have a little anecdote: when I worked in Japan for a company supplying machine parts to Toyota Motor Company, my blood type was written on my helmet (which was used for visiting the factories). When I asked (jokingly) if it was because people would know more about me, my manager laughed and said it was purely in case there was an accident. Nevertheless, when in the factories, some of the guys I spoke with had a little banter about my blood type, which is O. It was never serious talk, just chit-chat. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The strange thing I noticed is that on Japanese Wikipedia, only Japanese people have their blood type listed. All others (even Koreans, who also share the obsession with blood types) don't. I checked Lionel Messi's article: no blood type. (but it probably isn't known anyway) I also checked the article of a Korean actress (I forgot who): same result. I know some Western people whose blood type is known (Hitler was Type A) but it seems this is not mentioned in their Japanese articles. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 06:04, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes I wonder if Japaneses write their blood types on their CVs. 88.9.215.240 (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No, they don't have to. There is actually a template which you are required to use (you can see the exact one here). I filled a few of them in. It asks your age (despite also asking your date of birth), and requires a photograph (space in top right), but it doesn't ask for your blood type. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Required by whom? Including photos on CVs is discouraged in the UK now - it's only really useful for discrimination on grounds of appearance (eg. ethnicity), which you're not supposed to do. I expect someone would remove the photo from any CV that did have one before the people making the decisions saw it so they can't be accused of discrimination. The only jobs you would be expected to include a photo on your CV for are jobs where you appearance is important to the job (eg. a job as a model). --Tango (talk) 00:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Japanese CV template is as required as taking your shoes off in the house, let's put it that way. It's just custom. They are taught to use them at schools and universities, and you can buy them at convenience stores in packs of 5 or 10. Also, they have to be hand-written, and not typed. It's just the custom to use these templates. If you're a foreigner (whether you speak and write Japanese or not) you'd be forgiven for using the Western style system, but mostly likely if you were Japanese and you did this, you wouldn't even get the interview, as they are available for free at the local Jobcentres (called "Hello! Work", in Japan). KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 01:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Full-grain or corrected grain leather shoes

Is the difference so huge to justify the amazing difference in price between the former and the latter? Couldn't a corrected grain leather shoe be better, since the leather has been treated more thoroughly? 88.9.215.240 (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I had never heard of these terms before I saw your question (leather explained them). But what occurs to me is that prices, especially for things that may be seen as luxuries, tend to reflect demand more than inherent cost. If "full-grain" is esteemed as more "natural" (a common obsession nowadays) this may account for the difference. --ColinFine (talk)

Full grain is appropriate when the visual character of the skin is a selling point. So, for the given surface of the item, you need a patch of skin that's uniform and unblemished. But animal skin often isn't uniform and unblemished. Cows and other animals are attacked by various nasty biting, stinging, sucking, and burrowing insects, get injured from things like fence posts and barbed-wire (the scratch themselves against barbed wire, often because those burrowing insects make them feel itchy), and get things like skin infections and immunisation scars. So if you take the tanned hide of a regular milk cow, for example, it's likely to have lots of little scrapes and dents and cuts and scars, so it's hard to cut from that a big piece suitable for a high quality leather sofa, or even for a shoe upper. It's possible for a farmer to reduce the number of such blemishes (no barbed wire, more thorough insect treatment, harvesting the animal as soon as it's mature, if not before) at the expense of more complicated and pricey husbandry. One thing: sometimes you do see stuff made from full-grain leather where the blemishes are evident - that gives you that fake "authentic western" look ("now 40 percent more rootin' tootin!"), where the marks and holes (where an injury has caused the skin to open completely during the tanning process) are a feature. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 16:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The corrected grain leather may lose it's pattern over time, but hopefully will otherwise remain intact. You can probably apply shoe polish to cover the worn-off pattern, assuming these are shoe we're talking about. StuRat (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

When I read of splitting a piece of animal skin into two or three thicknesses, I can't envision how it would be possible, since the stuff seems tough, and since a knife would want to break through the surface on one side or the other. How thick is the skin of a cow, anyway? Edison (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Credit rating outlooks

Why do credit rating agencies give "outlooks" (ie. say whether a rating is likely to increase, decrease or stay the same)? Why don't they just incorporate all the information they have into the main rating? I know the ratings aren't purely an indicator of probability of default, but that is essentially what they are supposed to represent. In Bayesian probability (which is how mathematicians would think about the probability of a default event), we base our probabilities on all the information we have. You wouldn't say a probability is likely to increase when we get more evidence, you would just increase it now (and then decrease it if the evidence you expected didn't happen). Why does the same not apply to credit ratings? --Tango (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's short term credit, like one of those paycheck cashing places that gives you a loan til payday. They really don't much care about your long term credit prospects. On the other hand, if you are getting a 30-year mortgage, they very much care about that. Say you have a high-paying job now, but are 60 years old, and don't have any retirement plan or savings. That would make you a good short-term loan prospect, but a poor 30-year mortgage prospect. StuRat (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been clear. I'm talking about credit ratings of bond issuers - companies and governments. I don't think anyone gives outlooks on individual credit scores, since they require much more than just a formulaic analysis of a credit history. --Tango (talk) 18:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, the same logic would apply there, too. For a short-term bond, you only care about their current ability to pay, while for long-term bonds you care about their long-term credit rating. If a company is dominating an industry that's slowly dying, like film cameras, and making no attempt to adapt, they might fall into this category. StuRat (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the difference between long-term and short-term credit ratings, I'm talking about the outlooks credit rating agencies give saying how a rating is likely to change. --Tango (talk) 20:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

This is only a guess, but I suspect that the reason is that ratings are given in fixed categories (triple A etc) whereas the actual calculations are probabilities on a continuous scale. Thus the recent warning that France was likely to lose its top status indicated that the calculated probability was dropping to the lower end of the "Triple A" range, and this was confirmed later when the probability fell further to a value outside the range. Dbfirs 21:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

So you think the outlooks are just an even finer version of the +'s and -'s that they put on some of the ratings? I suppose that's possible, although it seems an odd way to say it. --Tango (talk) 12:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem odd, because, as you said, rate of fall and expectation of future probabilities should already be factored into the rating. Perhaps they are just reluctant to change the published rating until they are sure. Can anyone give a better answer? Dbfirs 18:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

North Korean constitution vs. reality

According to Politics of North Korea#Political parties and elections, the constitution of North Korea guarantees voters the right to a secret ballot. In reality, however, there is no such thing, and all voters must vote openly, before the eyes of the government officials. How can it be that the North Korean government so blatantly and openly violates its own constitution? Do they even bother to pretend the constitution is worth a toss? What would happen if some citizen appealed to their constitutional rights? Would he/she be instantly shot? JIP | Talk 16:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd call it a prime example of doublespeak, as is appropriate in the world's most Orwellian society. Acroterion (talk) 16:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It's absolutely par for the course for repressive, totalitarian governments to have wonderful constitutions that protect human rights, which they completely ignore. The Soviet Union had such a constitution. (If you have no intention of honoring your constitution, you might as well promise everything anyone could ever ask for.) As far as appealing to the courts, I doubt if there is even a mechanism for doing so. The logic would be "everyone has infinite freedom, so there's no need to appeal to the courts". If somebody made enough of a nuisance for the government, then they might very well shoot them. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

North Korea takes the constitution seriously to the extent that it lays out the framework for Juche ideology - the constitution is revered much in the same way the First Ammendment is in the US - but that's not to say they can't interpret it... oddly. The government would probably argue that the election is "secret", on the grounds that there are voting booths and, I believe, the voting slips themselves are anonymised. Of course, the voting booths to vote against the party are separated from the ones to vote for the party, so it's still transparently obvious who's voted for what, but it's enough of a legal fiction that the government can pay lip-service to the idea. North Korea also lacks judicial review, so unlike in the US where you could appeal to the Supreme Court if the government isn't respecting your rights, or the Council of Europe where you can go to either national courts or the European Court of Human Rights, it would be impossible to appeal to your constitutional rights. Smurrayinchester 17:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

What would happen if a citizen were to simply say to the government officials present at the election: "But it says here in the constitution I have the right to a secret ballot"?

1. Would they reply "The ballot is secret. You don't have to write your name on it", while cleverly omitting the fact that the way the elections are set up, there is absolutely no way casting a vote against the party can be done in any secrecy?
2. Would they reply "Constitution, schmonstitution. Just do what the Party tells you and be happy with it"?
3. Would they instantly shoot him/her for daring to question the system? JIP | Talk 19:23, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

There is an entire chapter in The Gulag Archipelago about the willful and happy abuse and ignoring of Constitutional provisions under the USSR. I think, rather, it is important to realize that living in a place where a piece of paper can actually limit what people with guns and tanks can do is something of the odd case, not the other way around. --Mr.98 (talk) 03:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't a voter mark their voting slip with a vote against the party whilst in the privacy of a for-the-party booth? Astronaut (talk) 06:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That might work in theory, but I've come to understand that in North Korea, there are no booths. Instead there's a ballot box and an open side table with a red pen on it out in the open. To vote for the party, you just go directly to the ballot box and drop your slip there. To vote against the party, you have to take an extra action to mark the slip with the red pen. Because this has to be done openly in the voting room before the eyes of the secret police, the government will know that anyone who did anything other than go straight to the ballot box is a traitor and thus will be exterminated. JIP | Talk 10:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You've got to admit, that's a pretty clever plan they've come up with there. Not very nice, but it does the job they want it to. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how it's clever. They could just not have elections at all. I don't see any gain in holding an election that everyone knows is a sham (well, everyone outside knows it is - I'm assuming the North Koreans haven't been brainwashed so much that they can't realise it too). --Tango (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Talking of shams, I heard that the South Koreans claimed that any North Korean who did not fully participate in the fulsome public grieving for the late beloved leader was liable to be severely punished, but the North Koreans denied they have any such policy. They insist all the wailing is absolutely genuine. I don't know which story is the more laughable. The tragedy is, any human being, including the ordinary North Koreans, can tell when someone is shedding crocodile tears, particularly when the act is so over the top as to be ridiculous, and an insult to whatever merits the departed may have had. Just exactly who the authorities think they're fooling with these stage-managed excesses is beyond me. It's all an act, they know it is, we know it is, they know we know, and they know we know they know. What sort of ideology can allow such a farce? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Theirs (addendum: I am leaning towards the opinion that it's just for the benefit of the one man in the lead or the handful of people who actually believe in their system). --Ouro (blah blah) 10:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

We had an interesting discussion on the genuineness or otherwise of that public grieving a few weeks ago. --Viennese Waltz 10:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

To comment on that discussion (the original thread is too old for my comment to be of any use), it isn't the question whether most people were genuinely saddened and grieving over Kim Jong-Il's death. The point is that a society that forces people to be saddened and grieve over a leader's death, or else face half a year in a prison camp, at the minimum, has to be seriously messed up. JIP | Talk 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's as crazy as scheduling "spontaneous joy" into one's daily list of tasks. Or telling TV studio audiences when to break into applause ......... -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, technically an applause only requires a physical act, not necessarily the emotion behind it. But I get your reasoning about spontaneous joy, and agree with it. JIP | Talk 20:00, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's considered polite to clap at the end of a performance, if only to express "Thank God that's over". Clapping during the performance is meant to express spontaneous feelings of gladness or whatever. Presumably most people in TV studio audiences have a good idea of what the show's all about and who's in it, so they're hardly a captive audience, and they'll willingly go along with the "Applause" sign, because in most cases they would have clapped at that point anyway, or near enough. I was just making the point that the NKs aren't the only culture that stage manages public displays of feelings, but that's where the comparison ends. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

With TV audiences, I think the cue cards are mostly because the audience needs to react to the same thing half a dozen times until everything is just right. A spontaneous reaction should be fine the first time, but you can't rely on people to laugh spontaneously the 4th time they hear a particular joke. --Tango (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Costa Concordia

This tragedy is an ongoing one - no question about that - and no disrespect to those who have lost their lives - and their friends and families. But on a separate but not unassociated issue - what will happen to the stricken hull, once all the investigations and recoveries have been effected? At 115,000 tons, is it feasible for a ship lying on its side, and filled with maritime diesel fuel, to be uprighted and floated away to a dry-dock for repair and re-fitting - only then to be sold on to another company and renamed? Or will she be cut up as per The Herald of Free Enterprise and sold as scrap metal? Only curious but extremely sympathetic to all those directly and indirectly affected. 62.30.176.76 (talk) 23:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It is hard to say. Consider the fate of the SS America. That ship was much smaller (only 26,000 tons), but still a rather large ship, and it was allowed to basically rot in place where it ran aground. Which is not to say that will happen to the Costa Concordia, but predicting what will happen is difficult to say. --Jayron32 01:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

That's an instructive example. When she ran aground, America was a structurally sound (if low value) hull - but 48 hours later the sea had broken her back. Once the basic structure is compromised to that extent, salvage becomes very difficult and the proceeds little (you get some scrap steel, not a reusable vessel). Right now it looks as if Concordia is in good structural condition - but if they have to wait a week or two until they're allowed to move her off the rocks, the sea may have destroyed her. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:15, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear whether the ship really listed to port (from the flooding) or whether it ran aground and the wave action pushed it over (using the rocks/sand as a fulcrum). If it's the latter, it may simply be enough to wait for high tide and drag it back off the rocks with tugs, and then off to somewhere for repair. If it really did partially sink then they'll want to remove the fuel (which would contaminate the foreshore if it escaped). Then what they'll do depends on its condition. They can tug it off anyway (with more tugs running massive pumps to keep a leaky ship afloat), temporarily patch it, or fill spaces with lifting bags (Google finds these ones by way of example). The longer it stays on the rocks the more damage it'll suffer from the action of wave and tide, so ideally they'd get it off quickly - the fact that people are missing (with a reasonable chance that some are still inside the ship) means they'll have to wait until the rescue is done before salvage can properly commence. And it's likely to be considered a crime scene, so that might slow things down too. But the Italians don't want it cluttering up their shore and they definitely don't want it breaking up (which makes salvage much harder, and causes lots of pollution of various kinds) so they'll be very unwilling to let the shipping line leave it where it is. It's not impossible that it'll be refloated, repaired, and pressed back into service - if so, surely in another part of the world under another name. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 01:08, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

See also Herald_of_Free_Enterprise#Aftermath, which righted the ship before removal of all bodies. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

While wave action could certainly increase damage to the hull, especially if the weather worsens, I imagine the effect of the very small tidal range in the Mediterranean Sea would be pretty small. Astronaut (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. The America case above is a bit of a red herring, as a result - that was fully exposed to Atlantic storms, whereas this is a sheltered and relatively inshore location in the Mediterranean. The weather looks calm for the next couple of days, at least, making it likely that the worst of the damage can be patched up and secured before it deteriorates too fast. Shimgray | talk | 18:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

They raised some of the ships sunk in the Pearl Harbor attacks, by patching holes and pumping out water. Five battleships and two cruisers were afloat again in 6 months, all with worse damage than this ship. Edison (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)