Humanities desk
< May 2	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 3

Handing out titles of the Peerage of England - how was land involved?

I have read peerage of England, and similar articles about peerage in the UK, and I have looked up some of the oldest peerages like the baron de Ros. But I don't understand how some of these peerages are decided. For example I assume, that before being "Earl of Someplace", you needed in the feudal system to some have authority over "Someplace", for example, own a large part of the land, or have barons in that land that are your vassals, and that themselves own a fair amound of land. So when a peer was getting a title, would that peer be given some of the crown lands in that area? Woudl the barons be told that the new peer is now their new local reporting line? Would the recipeint, instead, be given this peerage only if they already owned significant amount of land. Also, is there a time where the land became totally unrelated to the title? Thanks for any pointers. --Lgriot (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the first peerages that was viewed as a personal honor rather than something linked to territory was created in 1388. See History_of_the_Peerage. Nowadays there is virtually no link to land for peers in the peerage of the United Kingdom, and only minimal linkage in terms of affecting peers in the peerage of Scotland (for example, a peer must be domiciled in Scotland in order to legitimate his bastard children by subsequent marriage to their mother, and feudal baronies exist in Scotland, though they are not peerages). Modern territorial designations tend toward places with personal associations rather than placed once or currently ruled (e.g., Lord Mountbatten of Burma). - Nunh-huh 02:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] All I can answer is your final question — yes, there surely was such a time, but I'm not sure when it was. You can consider John Jervis, who was created Earl of St Vincent (c. 1800) even though St Vincent is in Portugal, not in England. Nyttend (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be interested in the article Victory title.--Wetman (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ross-of-Bladensburg. The family crest could be considered offensive to Americans. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 01:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it (which may not be spot on), peerages and similar constructs in other regions of the world were originally designed as political/military/economic structures. basically, a ruler would lay claim over a particular region of land which was too extensive for him to defend and monitor directly, and so he would select people to take control of various regions (local defense against invasion, organization of production, tax collection, etc), often as a reward for loyalty, and allow them to build small military forces from the local populations. it's the same idea as a colonial governor (except that a colonial governor generally works through some pre-established local political system, and doesn't raise his own troops but is supplied with troops by the crown). part of being a peer, of course, would be the construction of fortresses, keeps, and residences, and these structures would (de facto) belong to the peer and his heirs, leading to some fairly extensive land-ownership in noble families. --Ludwigs2 06:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, some peerages were created when William the Conqueror gave lands to the generals who fought alongside him in the Norman Conquest: an example of this would be (my direct ancestor) the Earl of Hastings. So the land followed the favour, rather than the favour following the land. --TammyMoet (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The British Isles were subject to a form of feudalism called bastard feudalism. Our article on the subject is a bit weak, but here's how it works in simple terms. In other countries during the early and high middle ages, local nobles (dukes and counts and stuff like that) were semi-independent from their king. They technically owed fealty to the king, but in general each duchy or county ran independent from the kingdom or empire they were nominally part of. Indeed, such fiefdoms often had a history that was as old, or older, than their parent kingdom, for example the Duchy of Burgundy and the County of Burgundy, fiefs of France and the Holy Roman Empire respectively, can claim decent from the Kingdom of BurgundyOver time, one of two things happened: either the kingdom became centralized, and the duchies/counties lost their territorial connection (as happened in France in the 15th and 16th centuries) or they didn't, and the kingdom/empire lost its own true identity, becoming mostly ceremonial (as happened in Germany under the Holy Roman Empire). In Post-conquest England specifically, however, there may have never actually been a strong connection to territory, since William the Conquerer really erased most of Englands political structure. Under the Normans, titles were always handed down as political favors rather being strongly held to the land. While there may have been some territorial connection to English titles (for example, the right to levy taxes or conscript people into military service) there were never really feudal "sub-states" in England the way there was on the continent, hence "bastard feudalism." --Jayron32 12:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While England certainly never had semi-independent duchies such as Brittany or Burgundy, the Welsh Marcher lords possessed a lot of personal power, and often ran their domains like rival kingdoms. In fact, it was said that the "King's writ did not extend beyond the Wye".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the exception was where there was an active threat and a strong "warlord" figure was required, the Prince-Bishops of Durham were another example. Elsewhere, the barons' lands were deliberatly fragmented, which is why the Duke of Devonshire lives in Derbyshire hundreds of miles away. Alansplodge (talk) 14:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Grey, 3rd Baron Grey de Ruthyn was such a warlord, also the de Braose and Mortimers were powerful Marchers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for all your answers, amazing. I have a couple of questions, however:

1. So in England, even in the earlier times, no land was handed over when a title was given, it was just the title itself. If you happened to own land, it woudl help for your status in that region, but if not, it is up to you to decide to buy some or stay away from that region. Would some cash be usually handed over to help buying land?

2. The victory titles are amazinga nd a proof that title had really nothing to do with the land: so when the Earl of Ypres was given his title from a foreign place, was the French asked their opinion before giving this title? There could be some issue, like maybe they had planned to use the title for one of their people (well it was a republic, so unlikely in this case, but still, asking permission would be nice...) --Lgriot (talk) 04:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ypres is a Belgian town not a French one. — AldoSyrt (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding #1: Not exactly. There may have been, in the early days, some land-based rights with some titles. Additionally, there were some nobles (Marcher Lords) and Counts Palatine), which were given some autonomy because of the important positions they held on the frontiers of England. However, within a century or so, even those rights disappeared or became moribund. England certainly had Manorialism, whereby a noble often was granted an estate he could use for personal income; however this is not the same thing as feudalism, especially as it existed on the continent. With the examples of the Marcher Lords aside, England never really had a situation like in France or Germany, whereby an actual territory, or large swath of the kingdom, was granted to a family to rule personally, in perpetuity, in exchange for military commitiment. THAT is what is meant by feudalism. The King gives a province to a Duke or a Count and says "You get to rule this land, collect taxes, etc. In return, when I need you to, you have to raise an army and fight for me" That level of feudalism didn't really exist in England. Nothing akin to the Duchy of Normandy or the Duchy of Burgundy ever really existed in England, with the exceptions noted above. --Jayron32 05:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Percy family of Northumberland had a lot of power, land, and retainers; in fact, they were often a thorn in the side of the English monarch, even as late as the reign of Elizabeth I And let us not forget the warlord Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, who was undoubtably the most powerful person in 15th century England.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being a powerful noble, with lots of estates and lots of money and lots of pull doesn't necessarily come about via feudalism. Elizabethan times are decidedly post-feudal, even on the continent. --Jayron32 20:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The earls of Northumberland, nonetheless, were powerful warlords in the north, and the first de Perci came to England with The Conqueror. Another case of land-rich nobles, is in Scotland where the Gordons of Huntley owned vast estates in northwestern Scotland which made them practically kings of the Highlands according to author and historian Antonia Fraser. The point must be made that Henry VII abolished the tradtion of nobles retaining private standing armies. A biographer of Barbara Villiers opined that had the nobles possessed private armies in the 17th century Oliver Cromwell would not have been able to defeat the Royalists. Of course, we are now moving well away from the era of feudalism.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On point No 2; probably not. Mountbatten of Burma was granted his title in 1946 just as the Burmese were gaining independance, having sided with the Japanese in their efforts to be rid of us, and would have almost certainly (in my view) politely declined. Alansplodge (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all Burmese by a long chalk sided with the Japs, and even the Burma National Army ended the war fighting alongside the British against the Japs. Mountbatten was rather notable for being very understanding of Burma's pressing desire for independence - and of Burma's decsion to leave the Commonwealth. DuncanHill (talk) 20:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everyone for your amazing contributions. --Lgriot (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wife of George VII of Imereti

Ok I came across this picture of King George VII of Imereti and his family, his wife and son. Does anybody have any idea who the women is supposed to be because George VII had four wives: Rodami of Kartli, Tamar of Racha, Tamar of Guria and an unnamed daughter of George VI of Imereti. Also is the boy his son George IX of Imereti or another son?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any substantive identification will begin with the site where this wall painting is located. The particular wife will only be identifiable if her name is connected with his as patroness of the particular church. No clues are to be found in the strictly conventional representation. --Wetman (talk) 04:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might help if you found a date of birth for the son depicted in the picture. Try Charles Cawley's Medieval Lands. He uses primary source records, and his dates are very accurate.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I hadn't realised George lived in the 18th century. Cawley stops at the early 16th century as he only deals with medieval royalty and nobility. I had assumed from the picture that George lived earlier. I'm afraid I cannot help you, QEIILS.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. The article says George lived in the 18th century, yet the painting allegedly dates from the 16th century! Perhaps it's not of George VII but rather an earlier Georgian king, and thus needs to be removed from the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't she look a lot like Ketevan of Kakheti or is it just how Georgian artist portray any queens in those days? And the date thing makes a lot of sense. It seems the French Wikipedia and Georgian Wikipedia uses the same picture. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm convinced this painting pre-dates the 18th century. Anyway, QEIILS, thanks to your question here, I was inspired to create an article yesterday on a medieval Georgian consort: Anna of Trebizond. Thank you!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More people recognized Ronald McDonald than George Washington

I remember someone in a documentary surveyed random people in a metropolitan area, and more of the people surveyed recognized Ronald McDonald than George Washington. Does anyone which documentary that was, and/or any reliable sources citing the event? 71.54.237.176 (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a scene from Super Size Me in which Morgan Spurlock shows children pictures of Ronald McDonald, and they all recognize him, but none of the kids recognizes Jesus. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 06:19, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where did they get pictures of Jesus? Maybe it just wasn't a good likeness.DOR (HK) (talk) 04:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec; great minds think alike) Perhaps you're remembering the film Super Size Me, where little kids all quickly identified Ronald McDonald, but were less sure about Washington, Jesus, etc. —Kevin Myers 06:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a programme where it was opined that if people saw Jesus and Elvis walking on opposite sides of the street, they'd flock to Elvis instead of Jesus. Therefore it doesn't surprise me that more people recognised Ronald McDonald.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 08:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That probably wouldn't be true for Abraham Lincoln (who has a significant presence in children's TV programming). it's just a function of commercialization. RM is goofy and brightly colored; GW is fairly boring by comparison, and not very much use in getting kids to pester their parents into buying them unhealthy crap. to my mind, there should be a federal law barring commercials from children's television. it's one thing to try to convince an adult to buy something (adults - at least putatively - have the cognitive skills to make up their own minds), but kids are just to easy to manipulate. --Ludwigs2 06:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yeah, but what will fund the children's TV shows? Unless you're suggesting that children's content should only be restricted to public television. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 07:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, no one would recognize Jesus if they actually saw him (presuming that he doesn't have a chorus of angels or something to back him up). Just saying. Buddy431 (talk) 07:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing a tv show where they tried to reconstruct what Jesus might have looked like using forensic anthropology techniques (based on similar people from his asserted region of birth, family career, presumed social class, etc.). The model they came up with was a fairly short (by modern standards) but likely heavily muscled semitic Jew; fairly far from the emaciated semi-nordic jesus that's usually portrayed in Christian images. Though of course, the halo and the walking on water are kind of give-aways. --Ludwigs2 08:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's in contrast to the occasional story about someone seeing the face of Jesus or Mary in the pattern on a grilled-cheese sandwich. How they can recognize something when no one knows what they looked like, is anybody's guess. Meanwhile, I would suspect that very few images of Ronald McDonald have turned up on sandwiches. Unless someone put a sticker on the bun. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do remember the scene from Super Size Me, which we were shown in school back in eighth grade. I was thinking there was another documentary, or maybe a news program, as well that did it with adults. I'm thinking something like that was done on Fox News in New York City. Anyways, thanks. 71.54.237.176 (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Spurlock did in SSM wasn't new. The same study has been done numerous times on various scales using Jesus, G. Washington, Abe Lincoln, Barney the purple menace, Big Bird, Elvis, etc. Dismas|^(talk) 08:49, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that outside of the USA this would definitely be true and probably so amongst adults. As you don't specify which country you're asking about, the odds are pretty likely that it's correct. But there is a teensy chance you're assuming we know you mean the USA. --Dweller (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the OP did mention George Washington specifically in the section title. GW is more of an American icon than an international one. I don't think it's that unreasonable to assume the OP is asking about/from the US. Dismas|^(talk) 09:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You never know about these surveys. If the question were phrased as Ronald McDonald vs. "The Guy on the Dollar Bill", the results might be different. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He is actually quite difficult to recognise. He's a grumpy-looking bloke in a wig, much like most other men in portraits of the era. --Dweller (talk) 08:42, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's easily recognisable to Americans of my generation; not only because his face graces the dollar bill, but on account of his portrait having decorated many a classroom wall! Along with Abraham Lincoln, he is clearly one of the most recognisable American president to those of us born before the Reality Television generation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I'm sorry, does being of "the Reality Television generation" (whatever that means) make it difficult to recognise Presidents? Or is it just that they have different portraits on their classroom walls? You're in danger of sounding like a grumpy old woman, Jeanne. ;) Also, I'd point out that being able to pick a portrait and knowing something about history aren't the same thing at all. I know who the first two Prime Ministers of this country were, but I wouldn't necessarily be able to pick a photo of them. Conversely, I wonder how many people who can identify "The Guy on the Dollar Bill" actually know anything about George Washington? FiggyBee (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I haven't a clue about history at all, FiggyBee. It never was my strong point, alas. In fact, I don't even recall who the last US President was. It must be my advanced years catching up with me.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Hehe, I didn't mean to suggest that you know nothing about history, Jeanne. But I'm still not sure what "the Reality Television generation" is, or why they can't recognise George Washington. FiggyBee (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC) [reply]

I will enlighten you as to the Reality Television generation. It's the current generation of teenagers, my kids included, who watch every single reality programme there is, regard the personalities as stars; yet know absolutely nothing about politics, books, history, geography, science, art, the cinema, etc. A lost generation who have become, alas, globalised as they are not confined to any particular nation or continent. One could also term them The Pokemon Kids.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:30, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it is the way of teenagers not to be interested in such things, Jeanne; were you interested in politics, books, history, or geography as a teenager? Were your classmates? I really don't think that those born in the 90s are going to turn out any less informed or any less political than those born in the 80s, 70s, 60s or before. Also, speaking from personal experience as a hander-out of how-to-vote cards, the younger generations certainly don't have a monopoly on political ignorance or apathy. FiggyBee (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I was; even as a child, I would devour encyclopedias, history bios, historical romances, study the globe. At the same time, I also listened to the Rolling Stones, David Bowie, and did astrology charts and read Anton La Vey's books. I collected costume dolls and voodoo dolls. I was an odd teenager.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I figured, hence "Were your classmates?". :) Anyhoo, people have been complaining since Plato's time about the yoof of today being idle know-nothing miscreants. But people change over time, and the pokemon and reality television will hopefully be replaced, or at least supplemented, by something more substantial as they mature. FiggyBee (talk) 13:55, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I read Dweller's reply I thought he was talking about Ronald until I got to "portraits of the era". It has to be said that Ronald McDonald, as a corporate mascot, is designed to be easily recognisable - you could show someone a picture of Ronald McDonald's left foot and they'd still pick him every time. It's a little unfair on poor old George, who was only human, and didn't go in for distinctive facial hair like Lincoln. FiggyBee (talk) 09:22, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, just imagine what GW could have achieved if only he'd worn enormous red shoes. Or grown shaggy sideburns. --Dweller (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An Ashokan Farewell

Is there anywhere online where there is free sheet music on the actual website for a solo violin for this song?? thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 16:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I love this piece. :) If you Google Image Search it, a lot of results come up. (I can't really read sheet music, but I suspect you'll find what you need easy enough.) ^Avicenna_sis @ 16:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the piece, but this result from Avicennasis's search should be easy to play on the violin. If you want a longer or more complicated version, have a look at the other results in the search above. 86.178.228.18 (talk) 19:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has a sample on the article - Ashokan Farewell, and the full piece is easily found on YouTube. :) WHAAOE ^Avicenna_sis @ 20:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having listened to the sample, I'd say start with the simple example and remember it doesn't have any ornaments marked on. Once you've got the feel of that, you can ornament it yourself based on listening to the track, or find a more detailed score that someone else has added ornaments to: I think ornamenting it yourself would be quite rewarding, and leave it open for you to play several times through, making each repeat slightly different. I personally find adding slides, for example, quite fun. 86.178.228.18 (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tune appears in abc notation at The Fiddler's Companion, which also has instructions for converting the abc format to standard music notation. I'm not a fiddler, so didn't take the step to do that. --- OtherDave (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Estate agents aggregation websites for finding property

What websites have different houses on them that are not found on rightmove.com please, particularly for south-eastern england? There are different property search websites, but many of them just have the same content that you get for rightmove. Thanks 92.28.253.63 (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I usually find Primelocation.com to be a useful complement to rightmove.com. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright of FTSE index figures

Am I correct in thinking or recalling that the daily published FTSE index number is not protected by copyright because it rapidly becomes common knowledge and is available from a large number of sources? In the same way that news does. Thanks 92.28.253.63 (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably in the UK, but I will chime in that in the US, the daily published FTSE index number would not be protected by copyright, not for the reasons you mention, but because, as this section of our US copyright article states, "no matter how much work was necessary to create a compilation, a non-selective collection of facts ordered in a non-creative way is not subject to copyright protection." In the US. By the way, the reasons you cite are 100% invalid for determining whether something is copyrightable — any popular book or YouTube video would lose copyright protection if your criteria were used. Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same principle applies in the UK. There could be database rights on some of the detailed figures, I suppose, but not on the simple index closing rate. Copyright doesn't apply to facts, just to the presentation of them, and there is only really one way to present a number so it isn't copyrightable. --Tango (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that if someone put on their website a dozen different financial figures each day, out of the thousands published daily, then they would not have any copyright problems? 92.28.253.63 (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. People can publish things like stock indicies values and generally be safe from copyright infringement. As noted above, a simple number is not itself copyrightable. You cannot wholesale copy the specific presentation of those numbers, so, for example, you can't copy the entire financial section of the Wall Street Journal; but just reporting numbers that are previously reported elsewhere are generally not copyright violations. If you have genuine concerns, however, you should contact an intellectual property lawyer. If you act on any advice given at Wikipedia, and are later sued for copyright infringement, it's your own problem. PLEASE do not take ANY action based upon this conversation. None of us are copyright lawyers, so this idle conversation should not serve as advice on how to act. --Jayron32 19:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since the idea that all numbers are uncopyrightable is wrong. If the numbers are generated through a proprietary and creative formula, for example, or compiled through non-rout methods, they can be copyrightable. (Even if they are random by definition!) Lots of "data" is copyrightable if it is formed by means of a process that is deemed to be creative—it goes from being "data" to being a compilation. It is tricky and if you were going to be doing this yourself you'd definitely want to consult a lawyer first. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

African American

shouldnt there be a link in this article in the section civilrights movement to lynching. i mean, the lynching played an important role in this movement.....? --Corduroycouch (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link in the section before it that says something about "racially motivated violence." If you think it needs elaboration, by adding a short clause, such as "racially motivated violence, such as lynching." then you should feel free to boldly add it. However, if you wish to discuss such an addition, the appropriate place to discuss changes to an article is at the article's talk page, in this case Talk:African American. Raise the question there, and see what people's response is. --Jayron32 18:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heuristics for doing difficult and complicated things?

Lets say you want to, for example, start a new budget airline company - WikiJet. You know no more about the industry than the average man in the street.

One heuristic I've heard of is "break big projects down into small steps". The problem is, you don't know what the small steps should be.

A heuristic I've thought of myself is writing a plan like early explorers drew maps of the unknown: Version 1 of your plan/map is very vague, but after you've approached and explored the problem and learnt more, you draw a refined Version 2 and discard Version 1. You repeat this for Version n. (Edit: you'd also need an Exploration Plan added to it as well).

What other heuristics would be useful for this situation please? 92.28.253.63 (talk) 19:46, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking specifically about starting an airline or other company, generally founding a company generally always follows the same basic procedure, starting out with developing a detailed business plan, obtaining initial investment from venture capitalists, organizing an executive board of some sort to oversee the establishment of the company, etc. etc. If you are talking in more vague terms, such as "how to do any complicated task you can't do by yourself", in general then you may be talking about Management, there are lots of management models, the Management article discusses a few of these. --Jayron32 19:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That classic routine approach is all very well where you have a lot of knowledge of what is concerned, my point is I'm looking for useful heuristics where you do not have that knowledge. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems pretty simple then: 1) Find someone who DOES know what to do. 2) Ask them to help you or do it for you. At some level, you need to either educate yourself or find someone who actually knows... --Jayron32 20:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are using methods for "tame problems". Either nobody knows, or you don't have access to those few people who may know. Stavros is not going to tell you. Have a look at the PDFs references in the Wicked problems article. I speculate that the business multi-millionares are people who can solve wicked problems. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is related to Wicked_problem#Messes_and_social_messes where much of the problem is lack of knowledge. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know how to approach a problem, and you refuse to find someone who does know how, or cannot, then it seems that you would have to approach the problem in a way resembling the scientific method: Make some assumptions about a small portion of the problem, conduct a small scale experiment (or project) to try to disprove the assumptions, refine them, then repeat until you're pretty sure that you have some good findings. Then move on to a subsequent small portion of the problem. This sounds like your map approach. By the way, for what it's worth, that "wicked problem" article is quite weak and I'd nominate it for deletion. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you propose using the scientific method to create a budget airline from scratch? I would think it would be of no use at all. 92.29.62.241 (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another example problem could be "How do you make a billion pounds?". I dont think your suggested approach would work for that. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With enough skill and luck, it would. Entrepreneurship isn't that different to the scientific method - you try lots of different things, ditch the ones that don't work and improve the ones that do. --Tango (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're glossing over the difficulty in the phrase "try lots of different things", as if each thing you do is easy. Each thing, like starting a new budget airline, is not easy but complicated and difficult to do, and that's what this question is about. 84.13.41.146 (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Wicked problem" is an interesting concept (and so is "mess"), and the article has 20 references. How do you mean, weak? Granted there's a lot of vagueness, but you could say the same about concepts in psychology or epistemology or many other fields. 213.122.67.216 (talk) 10:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to do lots of research and thinking. There aren't any "heuristics" for it, you just have to do a lot of hard work. --Tango (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is somewhat similar to software engineering. And the methods of software engineering (Waterfall model, IBM Rational Unified Process, Microsoft Solutions Framework etc.) generally recommend to start from the goal. In other words, you are supposed to find out if you know what you want ("What do I mean by 'airline'?"). After solving this problem (it is not necessarily easy) you will probably know something to work with ("So, I need some airplanes... Now, where can I get an airplane?"). However, if you start from a very general goal (or from one similar to "Go there - I don't know where, bring back that - I don't know what." from a Russian fairy-tale), you shouldn't be surprised if you fail to find any solution. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 23:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I have a couple of mnemonics which I use when teaching a quick and dirty guide to project management: SCHEMES (space, cash, helpers, equipment, materials, expertise, systems): and hopefully, if you follow that, you won't be left with OSINTOT (oh shit I never thought of that). There are plenty more mnemonics on www.businessballs.com. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear. Starting from the endpoint and working backwards is always the best way to work out how to do something (although you have to resist the temptation to actually do anything until you reach the start). After you've worked it out backwards, you start moving forward with the "small steps" you have worked out. The downside of this is that when you hit an unforeseen OSINTOT, you either have to start over, or else try and make two endpoints - the desired result and your current state of affairs - meet in the middle. FiggyBee (talk) 12:36, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another possible heuristic that I've just dreamt up is using the historic- or organic-growth method. For example the Microsoft company grew from some comparatively simple software, but added extra modules or cells to do particular functions, and the original cells are also modified and updated, or sometimes killed off. Like the way plants or animals grow from one cell into a complex organism. 92.29.62.241 (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a very useful or accurate analogy. Organisms grow in a way that has been established by aeons of trial and error. What you're trying to do is create something new in a intelligent way (Organic growth is a business term, but it refers to something entirely different). Microsoft's development is more a case of "building on success", and I think is only really something that's possible at the forefront of technology (and anti-trust suits); it's something you can chart with hindsight, but not something you can plan into the future. FiggyBee (talk) 18:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy.com was at the forefront of technology, and Google was a late-comer. 84.13.41.146 (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Embryos grow according to a plan (including feedback loops and logic and hormonal gradients and so on) encoded in their genes. I believe there is or was a theory that embryos go through the stages of evolution in their development. Your task is to design the plan (plus implement it). See Recapitulation theory and Evolutionary developmental biology and Modularity (biology). Perhaps a heuristic for vague problems could be: decide what the modules are - what they do, how they interact with each other and their environment. Then for each module, consider its sub-modules in the same way. Then the sub-modeules of the sub-modules, and so on. Requirements analysis is interesting. The serious book Goal Analysis by RF Mager has procedures for un-vaguing goals and the techniques may be adaptable to this situation. 84.13.41.146 (talk) 23:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a list of common heuristics anywhere? 84.13.41.146 (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a term for ivory or bone jewelry

I was looking through antique chinese jewelry today in Ebay, and I came across a new descriptive term for bone or ivory carving, which was "vivid" as a material description - not an editorial description, i.e. "Handcraft Carved Vivid ox Bone Cat Jewelry box 81" - these sites have almost no real data on what , how big, etc. a product is - what struck me was the term "vivid" seemed to be used to describe the material itself.

Any ideas on this? (the "cat" refers to the images of cats on the box, not that the bone is from a cat.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.11.198.4 (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Handcraft Carved" signify? Not machine-carved? Then, how has "handcraft" become an adjective replacing "hand-"? In "Cat Jewelry Box" does "Cat" modify jewelry, as in "cat jewelry", such as a cat might wear? Or box, as in "cat box"? In Ebay descriptions, the use of words reflects the culture and educational status of the seller as much as anything.--Wetman (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over time how has ......

over time how has a guy determined if a girl is beautiful or not?? i mean 500 years ago they would have had a different concept of beauty... right??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iluvgofishband (talk • contribs) 20:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Beauty, especially the historical section, and Physical attractiveness. To answer your question: Less than you may think. There is some individual variation among people as to what they find attractive, but spread over all of humanity, certain trends develop among what people find beautiful. In other words, yes, there are differences, but less than you would think. --Jayron32 20:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The portraits of Catherine of Aragon from 500 years ago (when she was about 20) are still pretty hawt. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ew, you call that hot? People weren't very attractive back then... I would dread getting married. 24.189.90.68 (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She looks pretty good (albeit a bit matronly) in the more realistic paintings. In contrast, the one heading the article suggests that "official portraits" were done by guys whose regular line of work was designing playing cards. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there are two things that result in someone being considered beautiful/attractive. There is a sense of inherent beauty, which is mostly related to health and fertility. Then there are cultural things related to status. These days we generally think of a tan as being attractive. In Catherine of Aragon's time, for example, they found pale skin attractive. This is due to a change in the economy. In the past, most working people worked outside and had tans, so being pale meant you didn't have to work. These days most jobs are indoors, so having a tan means you are wealthy enough to spend recreational time outside. --Tango (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umberto Eco recently wrote two books on the subject from the perspective of art history - the titles are pretty self-explanatory: "On Beauty", and "On Ugliness". TomorrowTime (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another big difference has been the shift from a preference for portly figures to a preference for very thin bodies. The reason is similar to the change that Tango has described. Centuries ago, a portly figure was evidence that a person was well off enough to eat well. Today, voluptuous has become overweight, partly because everyone (in rich countries) can eat as much as they wish, so a thinner build is a sign of 1) enough education to know how to stay thin and 2) enough free time and money to work out. Marco polo (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See The Human Face. It's a four part BBC series presented by John Cleese. Being presented by Cleese, it's obviously humorous but it's also quite informative. Basically, the idea of beauty hasn't changed much over the years at all with the biggest exception, according to the series, being in skin tone of caucasian people. Fair skin used to be considered attractive because the wealthy weren't out tending to crops in the daytime sun. In more recent times, tanned skin has gained a preference because now those with money could afford to go to sunny destinations for their holidays. But as far as facial features goes, the same things are considered attractive now as they were hundreds of years ago. Dismas|^(talk) 00:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a fairly Euro-centric view of things, though. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Catherine of Aragon was never considered a beauty; neither was Anne Boleyn, for whom King Henry broke with the Church in Rome in order to marry. Women who were deemed beautiful in the 16th centuries include Mary, Queen of Scots, Diane de Poitiers, Ana de Eboli, Lucrezia Borgia, Elizabeth Bathori (who went to drastic lengths in order to preserve it). Another thing, up until the the 1920s, straight hair was considered unattractive.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also: long necks, e.g. [1]. Putting this all together I arrive at an image of a rotund, giraffe-necked woman, with translucent white skin that the veins show through, as the perfect ideal of medieval European beauty. I doubt my method is valid, though. 213.122.67.216 (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In mid-15th century England, an extremely high forehead was a symbol of beauty; in order to achieve this, women plucked their hair at the brow as can be seen in the portrait of Queen Elizabeth Woodville.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty is an evolutionary concept. No doubt cultural influences modify it, but in general terms, if you're predisposed to mate with someone who makes viable offspring, your genes are more likely to continue in the gene pool. If, for some reason, you like to mate and not bear children, your genes will be at a disadvantage. This leads us to universals in terms of human beauty. Symmetry is incredibly useful: it demonstrates you don't have some flesh eating disease on your right/left side. There are other things too. Hip/waist ratios appear to be widely similar, despite cultural differences, as do other indicators. What all of these seem to have in common is reproductive success. That shouldn't really be surprising. Shadowjams (talk) 10:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and one might observe that as soon as the need for large families had diminished in the western world, slim, boyish hips became fashionable for women and teenage girls.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although there are some ubiquitous traits in the perceptions of beauty, it's possible for some quite extreme variations and non-natural modifications to become culturally accepted as 'beautiful.' For instance, check out Lip plate. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kant and kairos

According to a book I'm reading ("What Matters Most" by James Hollis), "as Kant pointed out two centuries ago, time exists solely as a construct of the mind, expressed in linear form, sequentially, as chronos and vertically, meaningfully, as kairos." I'm interested in reading more about what Kant meant by this "vertical", "meaningful" conception of time, but can't seem to find any references to it. Does anyone know where Kant talked about kairos? -- noosph e re 23:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the Critique of Judgement. There is no excuse for a modern book to not footnote such references. Of course, Kant came to the party a few thousand years after the Greeks discovered time had several meanings. Zoonoses (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, it's not in the index of Critique of Pure Reason, in which Kant treats the nature of time in considerable detail. Kant generally used German not Greek terminology, so I wonder if Kant used the Greek word at all, or just a concept similar to what Hollis understands by it. --82.41.14.1 (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]