Humanities desk
< May 6	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 8 >

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 7

Is HMNB Devonport still the biggest naval base in Western Europe?

The article HMNB Devonport says that "(Devonport)... is now the largest naval base in Western Europe". Is this still true? Comparing HMNB Devonport and HMNB Portsmouth and it seems like Portsmouth is a lot bigger, at least in terms of flotilla size. Johnson&Johnson&Son (talk) 09:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be dubious at best. Devonport "employs 2,500 service personnel and civilians" while HMNB Portsmouth "employs up to 17,200 people". Alansplodge (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Largest in terms of what? Unless we know what dimension we are measuring the size of (population, area, money spent, number of vessels, etc.) then we can't say one is larger than the other. Larger what needs to be asked first. It's possible for two different things to be largest, if they aren't measuring the same thing. --Jayron 32 13:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Navy's own website describes it as the largest in Europe - and they would surely know if their other base in Portsmouth was actually larger. Portsmouth employes more people - Devonport covers the larger area. http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/our-organisation/where-we-are/naval-base/devonport 81.132.106.10 (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, claims about being the biggest, oldest, highest, longest, most expensive anything should never appear in a Wikipedia article unless they cite a reliably source which explicitly claims that superlative: anyting else would be Original research. This claim is cited to a reliable source - but since superlatives like this are susceptible to being superseded, I think think the text should say "was the largest in Europe in 2007". I realise that this doesn't actually answer your question. --ColinFine (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, Devonport has always been second fiddle to Portsmouth: the Royal Commission on the Defence of the United Kingdom reported in 1860 "Plymouth is the second great arsenal and port for men-of-war in the United Kingdom" p. xxxii. Alansplodge (talk) 23:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Project management

Is project management basically the middle man? For example, the link between all stakeholders of a project but they produce little outputs for the project themselves?2A02:C7D:B957:F500:680D:9AA1:C351:6B74 (talk) 09:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In what context? The involvement of management in the project depends on what the project is. Blueboar (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if nobody's managing the project then nothing will get done in a timely/efficient manner..so the manager is critical to the output of a project..68.48.241.158 (talk) 11:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on what you mean. They don't produce the end results directly (that is, they don't build the prototype or draw up the blueprints), they are a way of organizing things. As the name implies, they "manage" things. The part that's difficult for many people to grasp is that that's the hard part. Our article is at Project management and the many linked articles from there. Matt Deres (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But do they have any expertise in the projects? 2A02:C7D:B957:F500:680D:9AA1:C351:6B74 (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That depends on the style of the organisation. Some prefer project managers to have at least a reasonable technical overview, while others use "pure" managers who rely on technical experts for input. In my experience, approach one works better for smallish projects (not more than a few man-years), while the other approach is near universal for large projects. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:16, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just to show how there is no firm answer to this question... The primary job of a General contractor on a construction site is "project management" (coordinating carpenters, plumbers, electricians, etc.)... And yet, depending on the scope of the building site, he/she might also be heavily involved in doing "production" work (for example, actually doing carpentry, etc). Blueboar (talk) 12:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article titled project management. No one here will stop you from reading it and forming your own opinions about what project managers do. If some parts of that article don't make sense to you, feel free to ask about them and we'll try to help you find more references that elaborate on it. --Jayron 32 13:19, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)There's a recycling site right outside a building site where a new apartment block is going to go up. Sometimes when I take stuff there I see sheaves of old plans which have been dumped there, presumably because they have been updated. Looking through them I saw that the planning is incredibly detailed, right down to the design and placement of the last widget. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two points (reiterated from the above):

1) Some managers are working managers, meaning they also do the task they manage.

2) Some managers have technical knowledge of the projects they manage, others don't.

Personally, I think a manager should understand what they are managing, and participate. When they don't you can get the types of problems mentioned in the Dilbert comic strip, where a clueless boss gives contradictory and impossible orders, not realizing how those orders will negatively affect the project. Best of all, but only possible for small projects, is where the person who is going to do the work can talk with the customer directly. This minimizes communication problems, but does require that the worker have some people skills. Also, just being able to directly ask the customer whether they want X or Y can cut down on the response time dramatically versus going through a project manager. StuRat (talk) 14:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are warship battle honours considered heritable?

I chanced upon HMCS Skeena, a list-of-ships article. Despite being about two vessels, it lists the naval battle honours of the first. I was tempted to dismiss this as an error, but it occurred to me - do navies consider the 2nd and subsequent ships of a given name to be the same "unit" (in the way that a modern army regiment still displays the honours, flags etc. of its progenitor regiments)? So, in general (and for any specific navies that anyone can find a source for) do navies consider HMS Foobar (2016) to be the same unit as HMS Foobar (1943), or just a ship with the same name? -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You cam across the page listing the two ships of the name - but only the first of them ever say active combat, so only that ship has any battle honours which could be listed. The second one was never involved in active conflict (unless you include accidentally shelling the USA). If you want to know the detailed service history, you have to go to the specific articles on each ship - the lists are not comprehensive. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battle honour#Naval battle honours states "The battle honours awarded to a ship are inherited by all subsequent warships of the same name" (by the Brits at least) and provides an offline source. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:25, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Australian warships also inherit the battle honours of previous ships of that name. Nick-D (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Alfred Edwin Weightman, Heraldry in the Royal Navy: Crests and Badges of H. M. Ships Gale and Polden, 1957: "The battle honours displayed on board a vessel of the Royal Navy show where the ship herself or her forebears have served for the protection and honour of our country." (p. 15). Note that the navies of the Commonwealth nations have generally closely followed the traditions of the RN. Alansplodge (talk) 01:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the curious, here are the battle honours of HMS Ark Royal (1985 to 2011). As you can see, they start with the Spanish Armada of 1588 and the Capture of Cádiz in 1596, earned by an earlier Ark Royal, and finishes with an action during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

medieval Hospitals?

Hi,

first of all, I want to apologize for abusing my reference desk privileges. I was wondering where I could find sources concerning rural medieval hospitals in France (say, along a pilgrimage route)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.174.42 (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you'd be better off going to a modern clinic as most of these medieval hospitals in rural France along pilgrimage routes have been closed down/provide substandard care...just kidding, this seems like a perfectly fine reference desk question..though the topic is quite esoteric...perhaps a doctoral student somewhere at sometime has looked into this....????(easy to track down references via google etc will probably not be forthcoming)68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there will be local history societies that have covered just about everything in relation to these medieval hospitals. And there is quite a lot available online, although for fuller references a local library or bookshop will be helpful. It will help a lot if you read some French. Is there a particular pilgrimage route you had in mind? The main ones have guidebooks, and some are grand randonnee long distance footpaths, which have "topoguides". If you know that a route was a pilgrimage route, you can see where the towns and villages along the route are, and if you count a day's walk along from one place to stay you may be able to identify where there must be another one. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if you google "medieval hopitals france" some superficial stuff comes up...there's even Wikipedia articles like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hospices_de_Beaune My sense was you're looking for things more specific and more about pilgrimage routes, which seems like quite an esoteric topic...68.48.241.158 (talk) 14:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have serious doubts that any medieval "hospital" was actually a hospital in the modern sense. That is, a place where the seriously ill went to be cured. The lack of medical knowledge and in particular the lack of basic hygiene knowledge would have made collecting lots of sick people together more of a death sentence than a cure. I suppose they could provide some rather basic services, though, like helping with child bearing. One of the few medieval medical treatments more likely to help more than hurt might have been bleeding with leeches, which could improve circulation and remove infected blood, as long as they didn't overdo it and cause anemia.

Note that barber surgeons also performed dental and medical care, hence the red and white striped pole (for blood and bandages). StuRat (talk) 14:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat could you please stop speculating without giving your source? There were indeed sick wards as well as isolation wings.

Questioner, in addition to the link given by 68.48.241.158, see Hôtel-Dieu and follow the links in France. There is also information in Medieval France: An Encyclopedia. More references: this book, this private webpage (which lists a couple of its sources). 184.147.128.57 (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a couple links. And what percentage of patients survived those isolation wards ? StuRat (talk) 17:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stu is right in a way. From what I gather, medieval hospitals were for only the very seriously ill in the end stages of life where the the burden of caring for them 24/7 was too much for their families to cope with. They didn’t go there to get cured (Doctors don't cure anyway... they can only aid their patients to recover -hence their use of word 'aid') – but when the local herbalist (which was now becoming a profession requiring recognized training) could do nothing more for them. Isolation hospitals were only an effort to stop contagious diseases from spreading (hence the use of the word isolation). Wise-Women were the local midwives ( hence the word mid-wives) that advised on difficult births. The system must have worked well, because after the black plagues the population of Europe exploded. But it did not happen over-night.--Aspro (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Stu is right in a way" - don't encourage him :) Adam Bishop (talk) 11:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. My Bad ;¬) --Aspro (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because a number of diseases could not be countered, and account of those cases was redirected to the assistance of the soul, because on the other hand what could sometimes work depended on the uncertain science of herborists while many possibly viable strategies were unproven and thus could be dialectically contradicted, the question of healing does not show itself in a very optimistic view regarding the Middle-Ages. Yet chirurgy seems to have been not so much unsuccesfull as could be a-priori suspected, so do tell... skeletons, see here. --Askedonty (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, here's some references (maybe not specifically about France, but monastic practices were not confined by national borders):-

Medicine and Society in the Medieval Hospital by Tatjana Buklijaš
CHARITY AND WELFARE: HOSPITALS AND THE POOR IN MEDIEVAL CATALONIA by JAMES WILLIAM BRODMAN
The Medieval Hospitals of England by Rotha Mary Clay - Chapter One: HOSPITALS FOR WAYFARERS AND THE SICK
A Companion to the Medieval World edited by Carol Lansing, Edward D. English (Chapter 12)
Framing Medieval Bodies by Sarah Kay, Miri Rubin (p. 47)

Good luck. Alansplodge (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if the reference above will answer all the OP's questions but they are interesting reading. Thanks.--Aspro (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to have a look at the Hospital of St Cross near Winchester, which is one of the few medieval hospitals still going. It's basically sheltered accommodation for some elderly men who get to dress up in a fancy gown and a big hat. Travellers can turn up at the gate and request the Wayfarer's Dole, a lump of bread and a small cup of beer, reflecting the hospital's original mission of ministering to religious pilgrims. The fact that pilgrimages were discontinued in England about 450 years ago doesn't seem to have occurred to anybody. Alansplodge (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The City of London has had a church on the same site (now St Paul's Cathedral) since the seventh century. A couple of minutes' walk north is St Bartholomew's Hospital, which has been there since it was founded by Rahere in the twelfth century. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Our Lady of Walsingham#Modern revival. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite so. However, St Bartholomew's Hospital operates as a modern hospital as we understand it. My point was that in the high middle ages, the term "hospital" could apply to anything from an old folks' home to a backpackers' hostel or a place to quarantine lepers. Alansplodge (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, would agree with that. Noun derives from hospitalis. --Aspro (talk) 19:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And that was my point when I said 'I have serious doubts that any medieval "hospital" was actually a hospital in the modern sense.' StuRat (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of floods on rural medieval cities?

Just one more question, sorry:

Where can I find sources describing the adverse effects of floods on rural medieval towns? Or how towns responded to flooding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.174.42 (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think you will find any. It has only been in resent times that new housing developments have been build on flood-meadows. In days of yore, when people constructed their own dwelling they had more sense than to build them on land which could get flooded. A popular construction method for most folks was Cob (material) and they would quickly collapse if flood water reached them.--Aspro (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a challenge; how about Medieval Floods and Storms and Medieval Flooding for a start. Also An Environmental History of Medieval Europe by Richard Hoffmann (click "previous" and "next" on the yellow bar for the various pages), Great Flood - Florence 1333. And these WP articles:-

Each article has linked references. Alansplodge (talk) 00:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Appparently, Saint Marcellus' flood was around 11,000 humans deadlier in 1219, but we don't have an article on that one. Might suggest around 11,000 people remembered what happened to their great-great-grandparents from the comfort of somewhere else. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial viability

If the word "commercial viability" relates to revenue and profit, why are charities increasingly using the term when referring to their services? 2A02:C7D:B957:F500:4CB5:EF37:EAF3:76F9 (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you seen that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't refer just to revenue and profit. It means the ability to continue to operate as a business servicing its clients, which means it has to get income from somewhere, to offset the money it spends on its clients. That income may be in the form of public donations, government funding, book fairs, investments etc. If that income cannot be secured, then any charity would quickly fold, because it can't survive for very long on its money in the bank. Also, public donations depend on the charity having a strong positive reputation, which has to be maintained/fostered by appropriate management policies and practices, e.g. having a healthy workplace culture for its employees, because allegations of bullying, harassment etc have a way of becoming public knowledge and casting the whole organisation in a dim light; or ensuring public funds go to the people they're intended for, and not eaten up in exorbitant executive salaries and lifestyles; and so on. These considerations are all very relevant to its commercial viability. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]