Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 March 14

= March 14 =

Details about Columbia River
I have been trying to elevate Columbia River to Featured Article status for some time. A few facts, present in the article before I began editing it, remain elusive. Hoping somebody can help me find a citation for the following claims: Any help would be greatly appreciated! -Pete (talk) 01:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Roughly 85% of basin is in U.S.
 * final 300 miles of Columbia is Ore./Wash. border
 * how much of earth's hydropower capacity is on the Columbia?
 * Hanford Superfund cleanup expected to complete by when?


 * You could probably find a number for hydropower fraction from Bonneville Power Association literature -- they're responsible for operating the dams on the Columbia.


 * Completion dates for Hanford cleanup could be a bit tricky: you could probably find an official date from the Department of Energy or the Environmental Protection Agency, but nobody expects them to meet that date, and it's a reasonably common belief that cleanup will never be finished. --Carnildo (talk) 20:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

By "hydropower capacity" do you mean "potential capacity", whether developed or not. I can't tell which is meant in the Columbia River article. I'll post over there too. Pfly (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input, to both -- and especially to Pfly for finding the cites! I'll post more detailed replies over there. -Pete (talk) 04:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Service that is still missing on the internet
The only service that is still missing on the internet is baptism. Right? Mr.K. (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think doing surgery over the Internet would be a bit difficult. --Bowlhover 03:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Difficult? yes. Unprecedented? No. H YENASTE 04:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To be baptized on-line you will need two baptized Christians to stand beside you to witness and support your baptism event. E-mail Rev. Walker with your request for baptism and the names of your two witness/support persons. Rev. Walker will process your request and set up an on-line baptism service especially for you. —Keenan Pepper 05:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So is an online baptism as valid as a real-life one? Our non-theological answer is that the symbolism makes a reasonable case to consider an online baptism as valid as a real-life immersion of your physical body. —Keenan Pepper 05:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course, for at least some denominations, all you need is one human to perform the thing. Anything added to that (e.g., Rev. Walker's Internet participation) is window-dressing rather than an integral part of baptism. As far as Catholics are concerned, you need (1) flowing water (even if it just flows over the forehead) and (2) a Trinitarian formula ("I baptize you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit"), and you've got a valid baptism. The person performing the baptism need not be Christian, or baptised: he may be pagan, heretic, or schismatic without affecting the validity of the ceremony. - Nunh-huh 06:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Online massage exists? Pfly (talk) 07:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It depends what you mean by service. Most of the services listed on that disambiguation page are not available over the internet.--Shantavira|feed me 09:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have found that anything to do with car maintenance is virtually IMPOSSIBLE to find online. I have to either buy a Haynes manual (or equivilent) or take it to a garage. Considering the huge amount of other 'do it yourself' guides online the minor-car-repair part appears not to exist. ny156uk (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You can get your rocks off by watching stuff online, or chatting to some anonymous stranger, but if you want to have sex with another person involving physical contact, it actually helps if you're in the same room. --  JackofOz (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * *cough* Teledildonics/Bluedildonics *cough* GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 14:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Insurance: what sort do stunt-people purchase?
Hello. Which insurance do people who do stunts purchase? If the person rescued had to pay for his or her rescue, which type of insurance covers that (let's say Tori Murden)? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The short answers would be A expensive or can't get any, B special ie expensive.87.102.83.204 (talk) 09:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The insurance company I work for operate on an 'occupation class' model. That is to say that they offer different rates based on the presumed dangers of different occupations. Often to reduce premium-costs for prospective clients we may include an exclusion - whereby the individual is not covered for injury/death caused by specific outlined pursuits. Also have a look at public liability insurance. This protects people for damage done to third parties during their performances (obviously within limits/boundaries). Hiscox for example are a British firm that offer specialist insurance policies such as 'Personal Accident' where they can cover people such as racing-drivers, sportspeople etc. Many insurance companies will offer similar insurance, both against death or (if desired) against damages such as loss of limbs/loss of sight/loss etc. This webpage (http://www.tmasiainsurance.com/aic/publish/html/accident.cfm) for instance includes stuntmen in 'special risk' category - which I suspect is a nice way of saying "You better have plenty of cash!!" ny156uk (talk) 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In Australia, in the case of death, a life assurance policy would probably have conditions or exclusions surrounding occupations classified by the company as dangerous. But if we're talking about injury requiring health treatment (which includes ambulance transportation), private health insurance companies operate on a "Community Rating" principle.  This means that when it comes to paying benefits for the cost of treatment, they're not permitted to discriminate purely on the basis of a person's occupation or lifestyle (amongst other things).  So, an injury sustained by a stunt-person in the pursuit of his/her occupation would be treated in exactly the same way as an injury sustained by a little old granny who got it while picking up her knitting, or whatever.  This does not involve the Pre-Existing Ailment rule, which denies benefits for treatment provided in the first 12 months of membership for medical conditions the signs or symptoms of which existed at the time the membership commenced.  An occupation, however inherently dangerous, is not a sign or symptom of a medical condition.  As long as the injury occurred after the membership commenced, the stunt-person would be covered up to their level of cover, without even the standard 2-month waiting period applying, because it would be classified as an accident.  If some special rescue service was needed, not just an ambulance, and they charged for their services, the cover would depend on the company and you'd need to check.  In general, I'd suggest that this would not be considered to be "health-related treatment", because a person who needs rescuing is not necessarily injured in any way, and you might need to investigate taking out separate cover for such costs.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Rumor has it that Lloyd's of London will insure anyone for anything, if they can work out the odds. --Carnildo (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Trans Holocaust victims: any details on transgender victims?
Is there any available information about transgender people who were affected (imprisoned, killed, experimented upon, etc) in the Nazi Holocaust? I can find brief mentions that say they were, but nothing more detailed than that. My suspicion is that from the Nazi perspective, they were just lumped with gays and lesbians which might make them harder to identify historically. --Ephilei (talk) 04:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked, Ephilei, but have found nothing substantive. I think you are right to assume that transgenders were placed in the same pink triangle class as other sexual offenders.  Clio the Muse (talk) 00:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It may be controversial to claim this, but in the 1930s-40s, I doubt that what we consider as 'transsexual' even existed. Gender is, afterall, a completely cultural phenomena, and cultures have changed hugely over the last 70 years. Ninebucks (talk) 20:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not controversial at all. However, you're confusing transgender with transexual. Transgender have existed for thousands of years, specifically including in Germany during the rise of the Nazi party. See Institut für Sexualwissenschaft. It all gets fuzzy after that. --76.192.189.206 (talk) 04:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Zita, death: 13th-century Saint Zita's clothes
Saint Zita died in 1272. Was she entombed in the clothes she wears this image? I have trouble believing that those clothes are over 500 years old. H YENASTE 05:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Zita died in 1272, so the clothes you see on her now would not have been those in which she was buried. There is some indirect evidence here that she was undressed in about the 1990s. It is an article about mummified saints' bodies, with a brief mention of the examination of St Vita's body, which revealed no marks of incisions on her body. The body of Bernadette of Lourdes is recorded to have been given a fresh habit on at least two occasions, so the re-dressing of a body is not in itself sacrilegious. The fact that Zita is dressed in a beautiful new dress is quite poignant when part of the story of her piety is that she was continually giving away the new clothes her employers gave her, so that poor people could be dressed. SaundersW (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Aw, the clothes aren't part of the uncorruptedness? Adam Bishop (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * While Superman apparently transfers his invulnerability to his clothes by contact, saints don't seem to have that same kind of contagion. Anyway, why shouldn't a girl get new clothes from time to time so she looks her best, even when she's dead! SaundersW (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Doing a history PhD in the UK
How much does it cost? How do I go about getting funding? How do I find the best university for my particular subject? Can I do it 'remotely' rather than having to live in the university town? Help, please! 81.159.89.104 (talk) 08:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Perhaps I should add that I graduated 23 years so am very out of touch about these things. 81.159.89.104 (talk) 08:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Funding is distributed by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, but it may be difficult to get. The Open University doesn't appear to do a History PhD, but I recommend browsing it and other university sites for advice on applying for funding etc. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. But oh dear, I have more questions. Do I have to do an MA before the PhD or can I just go straight into doing a PhD? (There's certainly enough material and research potential to make a very meaty thesis) Is there a time limit on how long it takes to complete the PhD? What is a ballpark figure for doing a three year PhD, including university fees etc but excluding living expenses? 81.159.89.104 (talk) 09:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here are some facts and figures on postgraduate degree fees at Cambridge, as an example. One way to choose a university is to look at recent books on the area that interests you and see where the authors are based. That does not guarantee that they want to take on students but it is a first approximation. Studying remotely, and even in another country, is possible, but you will need to consult the rules of the particular university. It has disadvantages: you are remote from the library, which is a particularly important resource in studying history, you are remote from your supervisor, which may be a problem if he/she is an elusive individual, and you are remote from fellow students, a very important and often under-rated resource. As a mature student you will have the disadvantage of having been away from study for a while, and of feeling maybe out of place as a student. You will have the great advantage of being much more mature in your attitude to life and having a lot more life experience and general knowledge and wisdom on which to draw. If you decide to go for it, it could change your life. Good luck! SaundersW (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh my! Lots of questions! The time limits are generally 3 years minimum to 7 years maximum. You don't have to have an MA, I believe that some funding bodies require you to have either a first or upper second class honours, or an MA. SaundersW (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all your answers, and bloody hell, they're expensive. Would a grant cover 100% of the fees, or would I have to stump up some?  I have a first and an MA which probably isn't worth the paper it's written on as it's from Cambridge ...! Jasper33 (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As for history PhDs, I have no idea what kind of funding you can get. But being an MA (Cantab) certainly opens doors to you. (Especially if it isn't the first thing you mention about yourself!) SaundersW (talk) 10:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * it wouldn't open any doors in academia as it's not a real qualification and would not count as a proper MA. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not mean that it counts as an MA, though just that it impresses people disproportionately. (In my experience, thus original research warning applies) SaundersW (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Haha, outed myself there, didn't I, dammit! So much for craftily unlogging on to ask the questions ...! Jasper33 (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * UK funding is pretty much all on a 1+3 basis now - in that you get funded to do a Masters and then if you show the talent for it, they will continue to fund you for another 3 years. If you are in the UK and doing the "right" sort of history, then look at Welcome Trust funding - it's a fantastic gravy train to get onto. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That first 'if' is a pretty big one. And sadly, no, not the 'right' sort of history for me.  I think I'm going to have to start looking for a 'Kindly Gentleman', a la The Railway Children ... Jasper33 (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I would be interested to know if any of the respondents here on Humanities actually have a UK history PhD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.185.172 (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

If you are doing a history PhD you have an even bigger problem than I first thought. Writing a PhD in history is a very specialist thing, in my area there is no subtext really, you have your argument, you present it, you present your results. However in history, you are writing some far more involving because of their use of footnotes - those can add up to almost as much text as the main body. In addition, without being attached to a university, I don't see how you'd have the document access required for a history PhD. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Sorry I'm confusing you with the problem in the section below. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If it is really relevant, mine is from a School of Mathematics. I have close connections with academics (who have PhDs and supervise PhD students) in economics, management, engineering and ancient history. All this is of course utterly unverifiable, as are any other statements made by anonymous internet users. You'll see that I have made no comments which refer specifically to history, except for the importance of a good library. All the rest refers to UK PhDs in general. If there is anybody who has a UK history PhD who can give even more specific information who is awake, able and willing to contribute, I am sure that they will. SaundersW (talk) 11:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Frederick. I'm an archaeologist and part of my work regularly involves research, often historical, so I should be okay with the methodologies. I take your point about the document access - I've been interested in my proposed topic for a while now and have gathered most of the available published work already (there's not a lot about); luckily for me I have access to primary archives and people for taking oral histories.  I meant 'remotely' in the sense of not having to have residence during a full-time course. Jasper33 (talk) 11:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * By residence, do you mean live by the campus? that's fine? it's not uncommon just to pop in every couple of months to see your supervisor and do the rest by email. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent - just the sort of thing I wanted to hear! Jasper33 (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

A (successful) contemporary PhD student of mine lived in the USA most of the time and spent spells of a fortnight or so on site for supervision.

For what it is worth, this is my analysis of the support you need for completing a PhD.

1. Somebody with the subject knowledge to tell you what is new, what is interesting, what is relevant, what is counted as evidence.

2. Somebody who can tell you what a PhD in your subject actually looks like (structure, arguments, references, etc)

3. Pastoral support. It can get very lonely, and there should be moments where you question what you know, how you know it, what reality is, etc. You need somebody to say that these will pass.

These do not need to be provided by the same person. SaundersW (talk) 11:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wise advice. Thank-you. Jasper33 (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

My PhD/Doctorate question
Can I just write a doctorate and present it to a university body for 'assessment'?. Does it cost money to present it.87.102.83.204 (talk) 09:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose you could try, but there are numerous bureaucratic hoops they make you jump through first. The usual process, at least here, is a 4-year BA, a one or two-year MA, and a 6-year PhD, 2 of which consist of classwork, one of preparing for a Major Field Exam, and the rest in writing a thesis. It's different everywhere but the basic point is that it takes A Very Long Time. So if you're not a student and you haven't suffered the previous six years (or whatever), you probably won't get very far. I imagine they would actually just toss it in the trash. (But naturally, you can publish whatever you want outside academia!) Adam Bishop (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Generally you have to be registered as a student for the course of your thesis. The idea is that you carry out what is essentially an apprenticeship in research. Some Universities will grant an honorary degree for the achievement of a work of scholarship which they regard as equivalent to a degree, especially if the author is an alumnus/a of that university. SaundersW (talk) 10:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course if you manage to do real ground breaking research you could be awarded an Honourary Ph.D. There are many examples of this, including Jack Horner (paleontologist), who had no formal degree but was given a Ph.D by the University of Montana. I don't think this would be a quick route though. -- Q Chris (talk) 16:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * In the UK is a thesis effectively sufficient if I can get it accepted?87.102.83.204 (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * yes but you'd have to do your viva (an oral defence of the work in front of 3 experts) to get the qualification. Having said that, getting a university to just "accept" your PhD is not going to be an easy process - first they have no idea of the quality and second are going to wonder why they didn't screw £3000 X 3 years of bench fees out of you. Moreover, if you are doing it "cold" on your own and with no guidance, the chances are that it's not going to be of an acceptable standard.  --Fredrick day (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * We have a Doctor of Philosophy article that contains outline information on admission requirements and funding in various countries . Broadly speaking, to be awarded a Ph.D. you have to produce a "thesis or dissertation consisting of a suitable body of original academic research, which is in principle worthy of publication in a peer-refereed context". As has been said, you are very unlikely to be able to do this for the first time without some degree of guidance and input from an expert in the field, who acts as your advisor. But experts are busy people, so you have to convince a relevant expert and the establishment that employs them that it is worth spending their time on helping you. And part of the deal may be that you choose a research topic that is aligned with your advisor's current research. A relevant MA or Honours BA is one piece of evidence that you can present that shows you have the appropriate background and outlook to successfully complete a Ph.D.; personal recommendation is another piece of evidence that may be required. Your best way to get more information is to contact one or two prospective universeties, tell them about your background and ask some specific questions. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks both of you - you confirmed what I thought.87.102.83.204 (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * And it's not just that you won't be able to probably "do it right", it's also that the definition of "do it right" is a little different for every advisor. I have multiple advisors and each of them has a somewhat different notion of what the final product should look like to be a good thesis, and the final product is an amalgamation of their feedback. If I had never talked to them and never worked with them and never really got any feedback on it then it's not likely what I would produce would look like something they wanted. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Kind of pisses on the idea of it being 'your PhD' when you just have to do what the advsiser tells you? Maybe I've just got a problem with authority figures? 87.102.83.204 (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it still yours, because it's still you who writes it and drives it's development - but your supervisor is there to keep you on track and make sure the quality is there. Sure you can take no notice, but you are likely to turn a complete steamer that gets rejected and then you've just wasted 3 years of your life. --Fredrick day (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Believe me, 3 years is nothing (smile).87.102.83.204 (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's all relative - if after working for 14 hours a day for three years, I didn't get my PhD, I would have considered it a complete waste of my time. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * What about the value of the work itself -wasn't that worth doing too - for no paper reward (just feeling chatty, not argumentative)87.102.83.204 (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * it has no inherent value, yes you know a lot more about the subject but so what? to what end? what's the point of doing a PhD unless you want to complete it? a complete headache with no payoff, you might as well just study it in your spare time and save your thousands of pounds and many many pointless meetings and discussions. --Fredrick day (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I will disagree here. I loved writing my dissertation.  It was the high point of my graduate career.  It was its own reward for me.  I did not go on to pursue an academic career, but still the dissertation was well worth doing.  I hope that I will have a chance to write a book again, next time with more of an eye to publication.  If you do take on such a project, you may want to be careful to pick one that will be published.  It helps to know what kinds of topics are currently "hot" and how to market your idea in that context.  You might approach an academic (or even trade) publisher in advance with a query letter.  Marco polo (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * If your committee had done things right, you would have been conditioned such that you became physically ill when you came within sight of your department's building or when you heard any of their voices. Edison (talk) 19:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (he he) And if they hadn't done it right, there's still every chance that contact with them would make you mentally ill.  --  JackofOz (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your point about choosing a marketable target is well taken. I've seen a lot of people who chose REALLY narrow topics that more than a dozen people in the world couldn't have cared about. That's a pretty bad idea in most cases—it'll make it pretty hard to get a job, or to get something published, or to even get your friends to care at all. It's no fun doing scholarship that is only read by a dozen people in the world, especially since you'll end up hating at least half of them. I never take on a project unless it's the sort of thing I could explain to my family in a way that they could understand it and see why it was interesting to me (my family are not, to say the least, academics). --98.217.18.109 (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if you view experts as "authority figures" then why do you want a PhD in the first place? (To be "The Man" yourself?). A PhD is very similar to an apprenticeship. You are supposed to be guided by an expert so that you too can become an expert. (Some do better guiding than others, some people need less guiding than others. But it's part of the system.) Anyway, if you pick your advisor well, it's not a fascist regime, it's a concerned and interested person who will help you push your work as far as it can go. A great advisor is hard to find, but well worth it. There are, of course, a lot of bad advisors out there too. It's not the end of the world if you are stuck with one, but you've got to figure out mitigating strategies. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a hypothetical question. Though I've often wondered if any of my work would with a little extra work pass muster as a Ph.D. thesis - I guess not - I doubt I've done anything truly original.87.102.21.171 (talk) 10:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * By itself, probably not, but that's a statement made by assuming your work is just average unguided work by someone who hasn't been looking much at academic style expectations, methodological issues, current concerns, etc. A (modern) PhD thesis is not a standard work—it is a specialized document. It is not a book. I could become a book, but that takes even more work. I don't think most PhD theses are meant to be read at all—they're meant to satisfy a group of prickly committee members, they're meant to convince a future employer that you know how to work within the academic norms and expectations. Most theses by themselves get read a total of four or five times. If they get turned into a book — which involves transforming them into quite a different document in most cases, for a different audience, with different expectations, and stripping away much of the scholasticism — then maybe they get read more widely. Of course, I speak from my own discipline's experience (History) but for most humanities/social sciences work I think it probably applies.
 * Which is all a way of saying that if you don't think your work looks like a PhD thesis, that's probably a good thing. It's not that you're probably not qualified to write one, but the document itself is a product of a particular educational and employment system, with particular expectations. It's like trying to submit a wonderful little essay on what you spent money on to the IRS, rather than filling out their tax forms. It might contain all of the same information, and be an entertaining read, but they're not going to accept it as a proper tax filing.
 * As an aside, one of my favorite non-fiction books, the award-winning City of Quartz, was once a rejected PhD thesis. The book is now a standard assignment in many different disciplines and the author has since won a MacArthur "Genius" fellowship. Approval by entrenched academics is not all there is to life, of course (but then again, most of us aren't really going to be MacArthur "Geniuses" either). --98.217.18.109 (talk) 17:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of a book which earned its author a doctorate: Divine Prerogative and Royal Pretension: Pragmatics, Poetics and Polemics in a Narrative Sequence About David (2 Samuel 5.17-7.29) (Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement) by Donald F. Murray. I am trying to hunt down a reference to the event, but I'm 99% certain that it was from Cambridge. Don Murray has returned to Australia, maybe Brisbane, so I can't contact him to ask him. SaundersW (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Beastorn report: see archives
I have completed my research on JackofOz's enigmatic Beastorn. Interested editors with sufficient security clearance may view it (eyes only) in the archives.

– ⊥ ¡ɐɔıʇǝoN oetica! T– 09:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You should take some rest. Perhaps a darkened room? --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps man was never meant to know the truth of the Beastorn. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 12:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Funny because the name rings a bell for me too. Perhaps some sort of genetic memory??87.102.83.204 (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My effusive (but hopefully not fulsome) thanks to St Noetica of the Heatwave are to be found in the archives. --  JackofOz (talk) 20:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * O please! It was really no trouble. One has to dramatise for Apocalyptic effect, that's all.
 * My preferred hypothesis is still that it's a simple mistake for "Eastern", due to either a scanner or a scribbling. The fact that Beastorn looks plausible as a medieval twist on Byzantine would then account for the word's persistence and plausibility, and especially its initial resistance to correction at copyediting, or between editions. Still, we can't rule out that it's authentic.
 * Looks like we've got a meme on our hands, folks. I think Beastorn will be the next eggcorn. JackOO, I'll communicate with you soon about how to investigate this further, and other matters. :)
 * – ⊥ ¡ɐɔıʇǝoN oetica! T– 21:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, the ever elusive Beastorn, a shy creature, much like the Loch Ness Monster. Or, perhaps, it is best ranged in the same class as the Phoenix and the Roc!


 * And, hast thou slain the Jabberwock?


 * Come to my arms, my bemish boy!


 * O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!


 * She chortled in her joy. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 *  BEEEEEEEA-STORRRNNN!  --98.217.18.109 (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just realised why I kept getting this strange feeling of déja vu reading the news. The prophecy has been fulfilled! Skittle (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul de Lagarde
I don't suppose too many people read the work of Paul de Lagarde now. I know him as a 'cultural pessimist', one of the roots of the Nazi movement. I must say that I find him and others of his kind quite intriguing and would like to know why he was so disenchanted with Bismarck's work in German unification? Why did he take such a negative view of the new Germany? Doctor Claude (talk) 11:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of good stuff on Paul de Lagarde in Fritz Stern's The Politics of Cultural Despair, Doctor Claude. He was one of those misty-minded right-wing intellectuals, ever in pursuit of nebulous notions of 'spiritual renewal'.  This, he believed in the period before 1871, would come with German unification; that the creation of a new nation would also entail the creation of a new, more elevated type of human being.  But the reality of the Second Reich came nowhere near his expectations, making his disappointment-and his reaction-all the greater.  Indeed, he went so far as to argue that Bismarck's creation was the very antithesis of what he had looked for; that it was more likely to bring collapse rather than spiritual renewal.  Quite simply, it was boring!  The new Reich was stultifying; it crushed the individual beneath its stolid sobriety, and thus annihilated the only source of cultural vitality-"Everything depends on the human being, and Germany lacks nothing so much as men; there is nothing toward which Germany, with its adoration of the State, of public opinion, of Kultur, and of success, directs so much hostility as toward the individual, who alone can bring it life and honour."  Clio the Muse (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Latin Empire
I should like to know please how the Greek people of the east reacted to the setting up of the Latin Empire after the fourth crusade in 1204? —Preceding unsigned comment added by K L Orr (talk • contribs) 15:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * To begin with, K L Orr, most people seem to have accepted the change of power passively: some even welcomed it. Besides, all of the old leaders had left prior to the fall of Constantinople, including John Camaterus, the Patriarch, who could have been expected to be an obvious pole of resistance to the Latin conquerors.  People were ready to hail Boniface of Montferrat as the new Basileus; and when Baldwin of Flanders was chosen in his place, many came to Hagia Sophia to cheer at his coronation.


 * This mood would appear in part to have been caused by anger with the perceived failings Byzantine authorities. Imperial officials fleeing from Constantinople were treated with hostility in the Thracian countryside.  When Baldwin advanced towards Thessalonica in the summer of 1204, far from resisting, the local people came out to welcome him.  But reactions also varied from place to place; welcoming in some, defiant in others.  With the passage of time the mood of defiance grew ever greater.  Clio the Muse (talk) 01:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Some good places to look for this period are Nicetas Choniates, the Chronicle of Morea, and as a secondary source, "The Franks in the Aegean" by Peter Lock. After the initial shock of conquest things weren't all that much different in the Latin Empire proper; they weren't there long enough to have much of a lasting effect. The emperors were fairly weak, were constantly at war on numerous fronts, and they were far outnumbered by their Greek subjects. Elsewhere though, like in the Principality of Achaea or the Duchy of Athens or the territories ruled by Venice, Latin rule continued for centuries, so it was somewhat different. From a religious perspective, which was really the heart of the matter, some dioceses were willing to recognize a Latin bishop if the Orthodox hierarchy was allowed to co-exist; some did not accept it at all; and some essentially recognized the authority of Rome, or at least pretended to. There wasn't much they could do, since the emperor and the patriarch had left even before Constantinople fell, as Clio said. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Sociology question: selective affinity?
Hi. can anyone please tell me what :"selective affinity" means? i really appreciate it. this is a term in sociology. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Logically...an affinity can be a similarity/appreciation/relationship and selective can be discriminating/divisive. As a result i would expect given the context selective-affinity means social-relationships that are a result of choice/consideration (or active). Your best bet is to look for its use in a sentence and try to understand the context of what it is trying to say. Both are pretty every day words so i'd be surprised if they take on any meaning beyond their well-known meanings in this instance ny156uk (talk) 17:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you mind using your logical analysis of language on the term "ecological feminism"? This isn't meant to be an asshole, but just that many disciplines are not very good in using terms which make sense. To answer the OP, it probably means roughly the same thing it means in chemistry (where it's well defined as, some substrates used in chemistry have selective affinity, which means they only bind to certain molecules). It's just the typical post-modernism coopting technical words and using them in non-technical situations.--droptone (talk) 19:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Advice on moving to Belfast
I'm moving to Belfast, Northern Ireland in a few months. I am Canadian and have lived only in Canada and the United States. I have read the articles Belfast, Northern Ireland, The Troubles, Politics in Northern Ireland and some related linked articles, Etiquette in Europe, Etiquette in Europe (and am not sure which of the latter two is more relevant), Mid Ulster English, Hiberno-English and some other linked linguistics articles (which I have some trouble reading, being unfamiliar with the IPA). What else (on Wikipedia and elsewhere) should I read?

I also have some specific questions. What do the residents/natives of Northern Ireland tend to call themselves? Irish, British, Northern Irish, one or all of the above and will I insult them if I get it wrong? Are there other ways of insulting people/starting fights that I might inadvertently stumble into? What is the standard day-to-day term for the Republic of Ireland? Do residents of Northern Ireland wear shoes in their homes? (That last one might seem weird, but it's a difference between Canada and the U.S. and one I'm curious about).

Thanks, moink (talk) 16:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Slightly off-topic, but that article Etiquette in Europe is very strange. I would note that almost everything mentioned in the section on Ireland (except the things which specifically refer to Irish politics) apply in the UK. And the article is almost entirely uncited. And written in a familiar tone. Hmmm. Skittle (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think there was a very similar question a few months ago - if anyone remembers it they could dig it out of the archives.87.102.83.204 (talk) 17:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Residents of Northern Ireland have different ways of defining their identity depending on their ethnicity/religion. Catholics generally consider themselves "Irish"; Protestants generally consider themselves "British".  To be safe, I would avoid using any term or referring to identities whenever possible.  Just tiptoe around the topic.  When you absolutely need a term to refer to all residents of the region, without knowing their religion, then I would use the fairly neutral and accurate "Northern Irish".  Not so many people in the region self-identify as Northern Irish, but most will acknowledge that it is accurate.  Probably the most neutral way to refer to the Republic of Ireland is "the Republic of Ireland" or "the republic" for short.  Again, you may blend in better by referring to specific places in the republic rather than the republic as a whole when possible.  For example, "I will be in Dublin for the weekend" instead of "I will be in the republic for the weekend."  The foregoing is based on a summer I spent mostly in the republic but also partly in the north some years ago and reading I've done since.  Others will probably have a deeper knowledge than I.  As for shoes, I'm not sure.  (However, I have lived in the United States most of my life, and in my experience, whether shoes are worn indoors varies from household to household here.  Most do wear shoes indoors, but a substantial minority don't in my experience.  I tend to ask before entering.)  Marco polo (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, just reading your answer and what you use helped too, "the republic," "the north." I was there for a job interview and people were asking about my familiarity with the area etc.; it sounds like I did ok saying things like "Well, my sister lived in Dublin for a year, but I've never been to the UK or Ireland at all before now myself."  moink (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, talking about towns and cities (or counties, if you're off to the countryside) rather than countries is a wise idea; that fails only for Derry/Londonderry. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There's an article linked from Derry/Londonderry name dispute telling the story of a Canadian tourist who was told by a train ticket vendor that "No such place exists" when she asked for a ticket to Derry. Just the kind of thing I can see getting myself into unknowingly.  moink (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec)The language of nationality is a somewhat thorny issue, one you might wish to avoid at first (see caveat later). Loyalists will typically call themselves British, Republicans will typically call themselves Irish - but being a foreigner you'll get a lot of slack, providing you don't start expressing strong views about NI politics (which is, after all, probably unwise when visiting any foreign country). ROI is generally called "the republic". Caveat: while the sectarian fissure runs through all strata of NI society, the gulf was always greatest at the poorest parts of society - as I imagine you'll be living in some nice twee wee place and living and working with middle-class professional people (not a council house on the Falls Road) the sectarian divide will not rear its head all that much, and you won't know (and it's probaby impolite to ask) from which "side" someone comes.   The Troubles for NI are a bit like WW2 for Germany - people might get a bit hacked off if you go on the subject too much, as they'll feel there's so much more to NI than that.  My advice - buy a tshirt with a maple leaf on it, as you'll probably spend much more time telling people you're Canadian (and not American) than worring about the intricacies of sectarian strife. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've met enough Belgians tired of being mistaken for French, Austrians tired of being mistaken for Germans, and New Zealanders tired of being mistaken for Australians (and one Austrian who had to explain to her roommate that Austria is a different country than Australia), that I'm ok with people making that error and I'm not overly offended. moink (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * One other piece of advice I'd offer is to learn the broad outlines of the history of Ireland (including Northern Ireland) since the Middle Ages. I agree with Finlay McWalter that you definitely do not want to take sides, but knowing the history, as nearly all locals do, will help you to understand the different perspectives.  Marco polo (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's why I'm reading a lot on Wikipedia these days. However, I'm bad with dates and details, and I expect to see murals saying things like "Remember 1916" and having to go home and look it up in Wikipedia, again, because I don't know which of many many incidents they're talking about or which side that mural supports.  moink (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As for Derry/Londonderry, you can feign ignorance as a foreigner. You can say something like "I am going to Londonderry...or is it Derry?" Marco polo (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

And no one has yet told me if they wear their shoes in their homes. Perhaps a native of Belfast visits this desk and can eventually help me out on that one. moink (talk) 18:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You might like to listen to this series about Northern Ireland, and the Good Friday agreement in particular, on BBC Radio 4, entitled The Price of Peace. The Radio 4 website has a 'listen again' facility where you should be able to hear all three episodes wherever you are. . 86.133.55.238 (talk) 20:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Tertullian and the definition of heresy
How does Tertullian define heresy in his "Preemptive Objection against Heresy"?86.151.241.198 (talk) 16:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Assuming you mean De praescriptione hereticorum, you can read it yourself. Algebraist 16:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

For Tertullian-at least at the time of writing-the Church alone bore the apostolic rule of faith, revered the canon of Scriptures, and bore through its ecclesiastical hierarchy the sanction of apostolic succession. Heretics were those who challenged any of these precepts. They were people who refused to accept the rule of faith, as others did. Instead they challenged people to raise theological questions to which there was no answer, "...being ready to say, and sincerely of certain points of their belief, 'That is not so' and 'I take this in a different sense' and 'I do not admit that'". A bit like Wikipedia, then!

Tertullian has it that all such unnecessary questioning automatically leads to heresy-"This rule was raised by Christ, and raises among ourselves no other questions than those which the heresies introduce and which make men heretics!" Heretics, moreover, are those who do not restrict themselves to the Scriptures, but bring in other writings or challenge orthodox interpretations. Heretics are, quite simply, rebels, in theological and in practical terms. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Trajan and the First Dacian War
Precisely what forces, legions and auxiliaries, did Trajan deploy in the first Dacian War? I cannot find the information I seek in your article.Marcus Trajanus (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I was unable to find anything precise. This source tells that two new legions were recruited and that overall 11 legions were involved. However I have read that large detachments (called vextallions) were the norm at these times. To transfer whole legions from one point of the Roman empire to another was simply dangerous and usually foolish as local threats like invaders, raiders, brigands, and rebels would take all too quickly advantage of the absence of Roman garrisons. It was better only to sent a part of a legion (usually the best units). Flamarande (talk) 23:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Found this: (through a Wiki-article). It gives the names of some of the involved legions as well as some original sources. Flamarande (talk) 00:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

From the information I have you (it is you, is it not?) had a total force of 90,000 men by May 101AD. At the core of this there were seven legions, as well as vexillaries, special veteran legionary detachments drawn from at least five others. There were also the Praetorian cohorts, commanded by Claudius Livianus. Added to this there were 24 cohorts of auxiliary cavalry, and more than 70 cohorts of auxiliary infantry, including slingers and archers. And, to match the stealth of Decebalus' forces, you also organised the symmachiarii, troops of barbarians armed in native fashion but led by Roman officers. Ave, Imperator! Clio the Muse (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've now given you a place in the Pantheon, O Muse. Marcus Trajanus (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My thanks, mighty Caesar! Clio the Muse (talk) 03:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Computer as a Judge?
Has there been any work done on eleminating human arbitrariness of the judge in law so that everyone really is treated equal, eg by using a computer that judges based on input parameters, the current law and precedents? If such a project is running, what is it's name? If considered pointless, why? (and is there an articel about is?) Thank, --Gnorkel (talk) 21:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have never heard of such. The closest you may find (in USA) is something like the Federal (or State) Sentencing Guidelines ... which is not a computer program.  And, even that, ... they are "guidelines" rather than strictly applied rigid formulas.  I will note that the premise of your question is rather flawed.  Most would feel that the judge's role should indeed have discretion (what you call "arbitrariness") in treating people equally.  Remember that "equal" does not always or necessarily mean "the same".  For example, for a given offense, to fine Joe Blow $100 and to fine Donald Trump $100 may not be fair, even though the amount is equal.  The $100 represents a huge percentage of Joe Blow's discretionary income and merely a drop in the bucket for Donald Trump.  Hence, such a fine / punishment would be tantamount to saying to Trump, "Go ahead and break this law all you want because our fines are trivial and you can simply pay your way out of your infractions a million times over without feeling the pinch".  So, the dollar amount is equal ... but the effect of that is clearly unequal / imbalanced / unfair.  Generally speaking, I think that most would say (at least I would say) that such a program as you cite would indeed be pointless.  The bottom line being that every case is different, every person (defendant) is different, each case/person brings a unique set of facts to the table.  It would be hard, if not impossible, to "quantify" all of these unique differences into a computer program series of calculations.  That's why you sometimes see "three strikes and you're out laws" sending a man to prison for the rest of his life for stealing a donut or a candy bar.  That's clearly not the intent or spirit of the law -- but, sometimes, it is the effect of the letter of the law.  There is typically some outrage when these odd results occur (rightly so) ... which makes the case for individual judicial discretion in how to treat different people "equally".  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Oregon Ballot Measure 11 (1994). This replaced sentencing guidelines, similar to those described above, with mandatory minimums. IMHO, it's been an absolute failure. -Pete (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That may be true. But even a "mandatory minimum" is not a rigid, set, mathematical formula -- as the original poster questioned (of the type: If a person of X Characteristics commits the Crime Y, then his sentence calculates to be Z Years in prison).  A mandatory  minimum merely sets a minimum floor -- yet, there is still judicial discretion to exceed that minimum (upward).  So, as such, it partially is relevent ... but not fully.   Thanks.     (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC))


 * There has been a lot of work done on combining different evidence in decisions as part of artificial intelligence. As far as I recall there are various ways of combining two or more probabilities (not just Baysian) but unfortunately cannot remember enough about it to point you to an article. 80.2.196.223 (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Joseph, your point is well taken, and theoretically true. However, a sufficiently high floor effectively eliminates discretion as well (if the floor is above all reasonable sentencing levels.) It's my understanding that that's the case in a large number of Measure 11 cases; it would be interesting to learn how often judges exceed Measure 11 sentences. I am pretty sure it's very rare, but don't have any sources to back that up. -Pete (talk) 00:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What you are thinking of is an expert system relating to law. Fuzzy logic is one way of combining probabilities or certainty factors. I have not been able to remember or find the more appropriate Somebody-Somebody theory or law of combining probabilities. Edit: Its the Dempster-Shafer theory. There are other similar theories also. 80.2.196.223 (talk) 00:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you thinking specifically of one of criminal law court cases and private law cases, or both? And are you considering only civil law or also common law? In general, the interpretation of the law, which as any expression in natural language is vague and ambiguous, is created and refined by judges. I don't see how this task could be taken over by a computer program; we are nowhere near automating and codifying the creativity required for this; nor can we construct a program that displays an acceptable understanding of natural language like even a six-year old has. In many jurisdictions, the system has a jury, which would also need to be replaced by computers if the aim is to "eliminate human arbitrariness". Examples of vagueness are legal notions like due diligence – no investigation will be fully diligent, but where is the threshold between due and not due? Likewise for gross negligence, and beyond a reasonable doubt. To judge this, the trier of fact has to weigh the evidence, which can involve the weather, known predilections of the defendant, conflicting testimony of expert witnesses, and so on. How are you going to input that into the computer? And in Dutch law, for example, the law requires the judge, in sentencing, to consider "the person of the defendant", meaning that a repentant otherwise exemplary member of society should get off more lightly than an aloof cad for otherwise the same crime. Again the same problem.
 * Some work has been done on formalizing fragments of law code in formal logic, but (as far as I know) the scope of this has been extremely limited, and the results have not been promising. For a form of logic that has been used for this, see Deontic logic. --Lambiam 01:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There have been several science-fiction stories about computers as judges (including at least one by Isaac Asimov, I seem to remember). AnonMoos (talk) 03:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in the book Objectivity by Peter Galison and Lorraine Daston. One of the things it talks about is how the 19th century fad of "mechanical objectivity" (the belief that mechanized ways of getting data would someone produce something more "objective" and free of human influence) really fell out of favor among scientists in the 20th century, when it was clear that "judgment" and "experience" were often much more able to deal with the wide variety of difference in natural phenomena than was the mechanical means. I think you'd find it relevant to your query—if even the hard sciences don't think that pure automation by expert systems is a great reflection of objectivity and accuracy, surely something as plastic as legal judgment is not going to be able to do that any better by introducing automation. --98.217.18.109 (talk) 17:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It's no accident that "code" can refer both to software and to organized collections of laws. Judges exist in the system precisely to administer the part of the law that we don't know how to codify. Programming a computer to do the task of a judge is equivalent to codifying every aspect of the law that remains uncodified, and if we could do that then the computer's program would be the legal code and the notion of a judge would become meaningless. All of the responses so far are just roundabout ways of saying "we don't know how to do AI". -- BenRG (talk) 13:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

British Monarchy - Line of Succession
I must admit that I am always averse to posting on the Miscellaneous Help Desk. I mean, the name itself is so trivializing ... and Lord knows what type of jetsom and flotsom congregate over there. That being said, it seems to me that the Humanities folk have their finger on the pulse of this topic. Hence, I post here. Is there any "real" reason why they calculate the heir to the throne of the British monarchy way out to like 800+ lines of succession or so? I mean, is there any real, practical, legal, cultural, logistic, logical reason that this has any importance? Or is it just name-dropping and ego-building. I mean, to say that "I am 857th in line to the British throne" sounds both impressive and laughable at the same time. We all know that we will only ever go out to maybe the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th line perhaps, practically speaking. So, why on earth do "they" (whoever that is) calculate such a long line? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC))
 * I've never heard of anyone saying they are the XXXth or even XXth. or Xth. in line. Perhaps you misunderstood a joke. 80.2.196.223 (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding me? They calculated it down to Number 1,389 in Britain.  They got it down to a science, it seems.  See:  Line of succession to the British Throne.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC))
 * Someone might have calculated them, but it is an extremely obscure part of British life. What you are supposing would be like expecting most Americans to have an extremely detailed knowledge of for example baseball statistics - although detailed baseball statistics might be published in some obscure book, its a big leap to imagine that therefore many Americans take an interest in them or can quote them to you. 80.2.196.223 (talk) 23:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your reply to my question. Yes, I know that someone calculated them.  Yes, I can imagine it's rather obscure at best.  My question was -- is there any real reason why this is done ... legal, financial, etc. ... or is it just ego building and trivial?  How does my question suppose that (analygously) Americans would be able to quote or be interested in detailed baseball stats?  I don't follow your post at all.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Ahh, well there isn't any real and logical reason for these calculations. However it is a unquestionable fact that several persons of this world are simply interested in such topics (royalty and nobility, the lives of the rich and famous) and in the British monarchy in particular. This creates a large market and there are plenty of woman's magazines that are simply full with such garba... heeeh specialized information. I honestly suspect that the overwhelming majority of the persons of this particular list couldn't care less and probably will not introduce themselves as "I am 857th in line to the British throne". Flamarande (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * It’s important to know who’s in the immediate line, but I agree that calculating it down to the nth degree is absurd, and nobody does it to that extent except Wikipedia.  Which is why I and others have asked for explanations as how what Wikipedia has done doesn’t constitute original research.  I haven’t been satisfied with the answers given to date, but it’s a low priority for me so I’ve let it lie.   --  JackofOz (talk) 00:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course there's a good reason for this list. If you're on it, you need to know which and how many people you need to assassinate. (And your hobbies might include collaborating at Wikipedia to come up with the  list.  Hmmm.)  See Kind Hearts and Coronets and the history of any royal dynasty.4.234.99.243 (talk) 00:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Number 857 dreams of becoming King Ralph if the higher Numbers have Rather a Nasty Accident. Edison (talk) 02:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The list at Line of succession to the British Throne is NOT any kind of official UK royal family or UK government production -- beyond the first 40 or so names on the list, it's based pretty much purely on efforts of private unofficial individual personal initiative (not really original to Wikipedia, however -- similar lists have been circulating on the Internet since before Wikipedia existed, as seen in some of the external links at the bottom of the article Line of succession to the British Throne). AnonMoos (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course there's no practical significance to knowing one's exact place in the line of succession (once you get two or three heartbeats away), but I imagine there might be a certain frisson in knowing that one is the last person in the line of succession (who seems to be one "Karin Vogel", born 1973, unless she's had children....) - Nunh-huh 03:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Why are you saying that Karin Vogel is "last"? Isn't the # 1389 person on the list "last"?  At least until a new birth occurs?   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC))
 * There are far more than 1389 people in the line of succession. Karin Vogel is 4900+. The last person is the youngest daughter of the youngest daughter, etc... that is, to find the youngest person you start at the Electress Sophia and reverse the usual rule of male preference first born, and take the youngest born of each family, females before males. And that works out to Karin Vogel (or her youngest daughter, if she's had one yet :)...  In that way, you can find the last without knowing all the intervening people's positions. - Nunh-huh 05:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There you go Joseph, you started out asking why anybody would calculate the line of succession because it seems so pointless and now you are so interested in why Karin Vogel is not the 'last in line'. It is so interesting isn't it. I would estimate that 99.9% of British people haven't the slightest idea or interest about the line of succession beyond Prince William. Richard Avery (talk) 16:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Very good point, Richard Avery.  As my original post states ... it is both impressive and laughable at the same time.  I can't help but to be laughing and smirking at how ridiculous it is (to be # 726,354 in line) ... at the same time, I am oddly impressed and slightly envious.  Fascinating, to say the least.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC))
 * But now that you're initiated into the mysteries, you must be careful to demonstrate your knowledge... You know there are only roughly 4900 in the succession, so no one can be #726,354! :). - Nunh-huh 22:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Some royal houses (Denmark?) confine the succession to a very small number, e.g. descendants of the current monarch's grandparent, so their lists are too short to be interesting. In others, the potential heirs are a huge fuzzy swarm, with the actual succession dependent on the decision of a council and thus unpredictable.  In contrast to both, I suspect that the British succession attracts the attention of nerds because it is nontrivial but also finite and (in principle) knowable, being confined by legislation in 1701 to the descendants of one woman, in a rigid sequence.  —Tamfang (talk) 01:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

How does economics explain the earnings of supermodels?
I'm puzzled why supermodels, for example, earn a lot of money. The work they do does not require a lot of training, its not difficult, and a lot of people have equal skills or ability and could easily replace them. For example this model Gisele Bündchen has only slighlty better than average looks (although I've never approved of body fascism or the cult of celebrity) yet earns millions a year apparantly. Economic theory would seem to predict they would not earn much. 80.2.200.28 (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a flaw in the premise of your question. You say "a lot of people have equal skills or ability and could easily replace them."  First, that's not true.  A lot of people can not replace them.  Second, I don't believe that it is the "skills and abilities" per se that drive these salaries.  It is the economics of the model's ability to "draw" / attract the correct demographic crowd (customer) and to represent the face of the product.  Let's face it, there are a million actors better at acting than, say, Tom Cruise.  But it is indisputable that Tom Cruise can draw in millions of fans to his films (and millions of dollars to the film company).  Hence, they will pay Tom Cruise $10 million to act in that film (for example).  Same idea with these supermodels, I believe.  To rely on a dated example:  Perhaps Calvin Klein paid Brooke Shields $10 million dollars to appear in the "Nothing comes between me and my Calvins" ads in the 1980s ... but they did so only because the accountants / financial wizards / execs at Calvin knew that paying her $10 million would generate $100 million in sales for them.  So, yes, they are willing to spend $10 million to generate $100 million, thereby keeping the profit of $90 million.  That's the basic idea, I believe.  And why does/did America love the ads and love Brooke so much back in the 80s?  Who knows?  That is the vagary / caprice / whim of the consumer public.  So, if Calvin can bet on a sure thing, they'd be fools not to go for it.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Also, I don't believe that their "work" is as easy as it seems on the surface. We probably don't see the behind the scenes stuff.  (Those ignorant of film-making might say "Geez, how long can it possibly take to make a 2 hour film? ... how can it possibly take 7 months?")  Those "top" supermodels (and remember, they represent 0.000000000001% of all models) need to be on top of their game 24/7 ... they probably have to watch what they eat, their sleep, diet, exercise, nutrition, etc., etc., etc., non-stop 24/7.  Could you live like that?  I can't.   Also, don't forget ... they are "in and out" of the industry quicker than a flash.  They can only earn these gazillion dollars for a few years before the next younger / prettier / trendier thing comes along.  Rather analygous to pro athletes.  They are in top shape, get used up, and then get spit out when the younger generation athlete comes on the scene.  So, for that brief window of opportunity, they need/can command a high salary --- but it's relatively short-lived.  I'm thinking.    (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC))


 * I was, and to a certain extent still am, a freelance photographer and filmmaker. I can assure you that there are literaly thousands of attractive would-be models; also that there is little effort or skill involved. And staying fit, slim, and healthy is the norm for intelligent young people in at least Europe. I admit it helps to be young, but when I was a student nearly all the female students were good-looking enough to be models if they had wished - with just the few fat ones excluded. 80.2.196.223 (talk) 23:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For some reason, I was thinking along the lines of runway models --- not print models --- when I read the original question. Nonetheless, I am sure it takes great effort to "look beautiful" each and every day.  They probably have to live in the gym 24/7 and most normal everyday people can barely drag themselves to a gym 1 day a week or probably don't even belong to a gym.  Right?  There is hard work on the part of a model.  It's just different hard work than, say, a construction worker or a coal miner or a day care teacher.  With the beautiful model, you don't see that "hard work" during the course of the photo shoot.  It's how the model lives / eats / breathes the other 23 hours of the day that enable her to look beautiful for that one hour of photo shooting.  Also -- the proof is in the pudding.  These top business execs are in business ... so we can presume that they indeed know what they are doing (business-wise).  They are paying Model X multi-million dollars only because there is a good sound financial business reason to do so --- and for no other reason.  No two ways around that.  After all, they are in business, not charity.  If "anyone" would do (as their model), and the Company could drastically reduce their expense yet still maintain / generate the exorbitant revenues, you can bet your a$$ that their pencil-pushing accountants would go out and hire that cheaper "anyone" model.  But, they don't.  Proof is in the pudding.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC))
 * I both dated and met a number of models in my youth, and none of them did any work-outs as you speculate, or did anything involving much effort. The make-up skills they had were nothing more than most young women could do: remember that professional make-up artists are used in photographic shoots or fashion shows. While I note your comments about "business execs" paying them a lot of money because they think that doing so will be a good investment, this does not explain how supermodels come to be worth such large amounts of money. 80.2.196.223 (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Well, perhaps it is circular to this extent.  Supermodels are worth a lot of money because top business execs say so.  And, because top business execs say so, it is.  And, knowing that "it is the case", the supermodels can therefore command the high salaries.  And, yes, that's circular.  No offense ... but you keep referring back to the work, skills, abilities of the model -- as if the model is fully in control of these.  I think it's more nebulous -- meaning that the public / consumer / customer is drawn to that "face" which is the representative of the company.  In other words, hypothetically ... if we (as a society) were all drawn to / attracted to fat old overweight women in their 70's, then that's who would be the supermodels generating our consumer dollars and commanding high supermodel salaries.  In fact, we actually do have that, of sorts.  I don't know if you recall when that actor Mr. Whipple died (Please don't squeeze the Charmin.)  He was an aging, old, unattractive "model" / spokesman in his 60's or 70's for the product.  He said he worked like 2-3 weeks a year and made millions of dollars.  So, for that market (toilet paper), he was the "supermodel" and commanded that high fee.  And the supermodels you refer to are doing the same thing ... just in a different product market.  Either way, the person (Mr. Whipple or gorgeous supermodel or Tom Cruise) has the ability to generate zillions of dollars for the product ... thus, the company is willing to pay accordingly.  Why these individuals have this ability (to generate this revenue base for the company) is not a question of economics --- but of sociology / psychology ... I would think?   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Another point: the original poster suggested that Ms. Bundchen has only 'slightly better than average looks'. Granting that is true, perhaps Ms. Bundchen has much higher-than-average confidence levels, which I'm sure is critical for selling fashion. Vranak (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the arguement put forward is of the form "supermodels get paid a lot because people pay them a lot" or "supermodels get paid a lot because they are at the top of their profession", which is like saying "some people are very tall because they are at the top of the height range" - it is circular thinking that does not explain anything. Are there any economists who could comment please? 80.2.196.223 (talk) 23:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are unaware that all statements are either tautological (circular, as you said), or a bald attempt to convince. If you haven't been convinced then you disregard an argument as circular. But it is only circular to one who remains unconvinced. Let's see, I just went in three circles I believe. Vranak (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wrote circular thinking - what I meant was paraphrasing. 80.0.110.219 (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No one above stated anything close to your circular "they are at the top because they are at the top" argument. The economics has been explained.  In dollars and sense, Model X costs our Company $10 million and simultaneously generates $100 million ... so we get $90 million profit if we hire Model X.  (Model X is called a supermodel who commands a high price.)  On the other hand, Model Y costs our Company only $1 million but simultaneously generates only $5 million ... so we get only $4 million profit if we hire Model Y.  (Model Y is called a "regular anybody" who commands a low price.)  Therefore, let's hire Model X.  Yes, it will cost us more --- but the benefits far outweigh the costs.  Pound for pound, it is "cheaper" to hire Model X than Model Y, after you consider the net effect (profit) of the ad / spot.  That is the economics / financial thinking behind it.  I more or less explained all this in prior posts, or words to this effect.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC))


 * I'll second Mr. Spadaro's point: a worker who (for whatever reason) is linked to the success of a project gains in reputation, and is often held in higher regard than other, less successful competitors. That's how I justified fame, anyway, until recently...T-T-Teeth (t-t-talk) 00:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not an economist, but I would say that supermodels are a vital part of the presentation and marketing of high end, niche products. As such, they might influence sales figures, and as such their earnings would be proportionate to the revenues of the companies. It's probably similar to football (soccer) players. By playing the sport they make money for the club in prize money, sponsorship money, tv rights, etcetera, and as such they get a more or less proportionate share of the money they amass for their respective clubs. A  ecis Brievenbus 00:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * How do you explain them getting high incomes? Accountants and (in a sporting context) groundmen do an equally vital job, yet get paid far less, yet are more highly skilled and are less replacemable. And in the 1960s or 70s footballers used to get paid very little, yet now they get paid millions. Why the change? How is it explained by economic theory? 80.2.196.223 (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * You keep getting bogged down with concepts like "vital job or not", "highly skilled or not", "easily replaceable or not". You are focusing on the labor market model.  I think that's the wrong lens to view this phenomenon.  This is the economics of it: these people called supermodels -- for whatever reason (good reasons, bad reasons, or indifferent reasons) -- can and do generate great revenue for the business ... thus, the business pays them accordingly.  That's the economics of it --- like it or not.  The question you want answered, really, is: Why do these supermodels generate such revenue from the consumer public?  I do not believe that is a question of economics --- but perhaps sociology, psychology, marketing, etc.  The economics are clear.  It's these other nebulous "x factors" that really drive your question.  It's like saying why does The Simpsons TV cartoon show stay on air for 20 years and those voice actors get paid a zillion dollars?  (Probably "any one" can voice those cartoons, in all reality.)  Why does a TV show like Freinds attract zillions of viewers and thus zillions of advertisers and thus account for the actor's zillion dollar salaries?  Why do people love these TV shows?  Who knows?  That is the psychology / sociology behind it ... not the economics that the original poster wants to know more about.  I think.     (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC))


 * By the way, I am not a model and am probably ignorant of the field ... but I would have to guess that being a model (and a good one, at that) must require more than just "looking pretty". Otherwise, as the original post states, anyone can do it ... and thus anyone would do it.  But, that's not the reality.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC))


 * Here's another idea: supermodels are essentially whores for products. They lend their face, voice, and false enthusiasm in the service of some soulless company's bottom line. The more beautiful a girl is, the purer her soul is, and the less likely she'll be a whore for suits. So getting a Giselle Bundchen to model your clothes in a magazine is going to cost you a lot because it costs Ms. Bundchen her integrity. Vranak (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting and amusing point. 80.0.110.219 (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * From what y'all saying, it does seem to be just an exchange of capital in a mutual brand building exercise – the model exchanges her individual capital (sometimes social capital) in a way that makes other people want it for their market advantage and therefore monetary gain and ultimately his/her financial reward and there's evidently a scale of sellers and buyers from down to up market. See also Endorsement (advertising). Interestingly the trend has been to replace models with celebrities to sell cosmetics, as catwalk participants, etcetera. Julia Rossi (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Do supermodels earn a lot of money, in the sense of being a supernormal profit? I know that they would earn quite a bit from advertising. In that case, the client is paying for the goodwill generated by the association of the product with the supermodel.

Assuming that they get paid a lot - why then are not people flocking to be supermodels? I think the answer is: they are. However, the barrier to entry of being a supermodel occurs at the brand establishment stage. It costs a great deal for a supermodel to be marketed successfully as a supermodel. The market has a limited appetite for such brand names.

In terms of the relation between supermodel and advertiser, I think of "supermodel brand" as the goods supplied by the supermodel, and demanded by the advertiser.

However, an "ingredient" of the "supermodel brand" is "public goodwill", supplied by the public and demanded by the supermodel/promoter. The supply of public goodwill is limited, because there is a limited number of celebrities whom the public will love - an analogy perhaps is the limited amount of space in the entertainment section of a newspaper.

So only a limited number of supermodels will attain sufficient public goodwill to pass a threshold level. I guess this can be conceived as a maximum level of risk for large brands. Once a model is established enough that the risk of associating with the model is below that maximal level, they enter the pool that shares in the aggregated advertising budget of major brands - which, as has been said above, is determined by the value added to the client's brand by association with the super model. This will seem high, but is an equilibrium position given the initial constraint (the public will love only so many models). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 05:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for a causal economic-theory type answer. I once dated the sister of a successful magazine cover-model, and she said the other less successful models were very unpleasant to her. When I was a successful hard-working photographic student I also had to endure a lot of unpleasantness and back-stabbing from the machismo students. So it may be common in the arts - they do not attract people with the selfless integrity of true professionals. That is one barrier to entry that people overcome by luck or whatever. I suppose it is like actors - hundreds of people may apply for a job, the person that gets it gets audience recognition which appears to be worth money, despite many other actors being able to do just as good a job - an example of a winner takes all phenomonen. 80.0.110.219 (talk) 12:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)