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[edit]

Exclave of Berkshire in the middle of Buckinghamshire[edit]

This map, and a few others I've seen, of historic counties of England has a small exclave of what I presume is Berkshire far into Buckinghamshire, in an area that by eye I'd guess lies between Wendover, Great Missenden and Princes Risborough. What is it? 86.21.250.191 (talk) 03:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any information at either List of county exclaves in England and Wales 1844–1974 or Counties (Detached Parts) Act 1844. Still looking, but perhaps the exclave is miscolored, and doesn't belong to Berks? --Jayron32 04:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't in any way 'my backyard', but could it be Princes Risborough? (Not that I know what it'd be coloured with a different colour.) V85 (talk) 05:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I fopund "Thomas Denton’s father resided at Caversfield, a Buckinghamshire enclave in Oxfordshire". See Caversfield Alansplodge (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's the wrong way round. Caversfield was geographically in Oxfordshire, but politically in Buckinghamshire. For what it's worth, in the SVG file itself, the exclave is part of the object that makes up Berkshire, but unfortunately the file isn't commented at all, so I don't know what the objects are. According to List of Buckinghamshire boundary changes, nothing has been transferred from Berkshire to Buckinghamshire since 1844, and nothing at all has been transferred in the Princes Risborough area. Smurrayinchester 09:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It could just be an artifact. Note that there is no mention of it on this 1860 map nor on this 1855 map. Unless the SVG is exaggerating the size of it, but that doesn't seem likely either. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 10:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I found this map, which gives no indication on it either. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC) This map shows a part of Herts not far from the area in question --TammyMoet (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tammy has probably found the best candidate - the parish of Coleshill, Buckinghamshire - but it's pre-1844 (with the map dated 1851), and a considerable distance south-east from the marked exclave. I think the best conclusion is that the map is inaccurate. Tevildo (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added to the map caption above so people outside the UK will have some idea where to look. StuRat (talk) 18:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

The map definitely seems to be post-1844, as it shows Oldbury/Dudley/Halesowen as being in Worcestershire, not Shropshire, and Lindisfarne as being in Northumberland rather than County Durham (see Islandshire).

Looking at the similar map here, it also has this exclave, as well as a couple of others I can't identify, such as one in Northamptonshire just east of Rugby. 86.21.250.191 (talk) 20:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have studied the map against this modern version and the "exclave" appears to be somewhere around the Great Missenden area. I have studied the history of Buckinghamshire a great deal, and have certainly not come across any mention of a Berkshire exclave in Bucks around this area. The 1844 Act (in which most of these outlying parts were ceded into the counties they were surrounded by) makes no mention of a Berkshire exclave in Buckinghamshire. The only thing I can suggest is that the map is wrong. If you can hold out until the weekend I can ask at the Centre for Buckinghamshire Studies; I'll be popping in there on Saturday. -- role^player 23:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second(?) Longest regularly scheduled National elections cycle in the World?[edit]

The United States has had regular elections for President and the House of Representatives since the 1790s. While there have been small tweeks, (mostly moving the elections nationwide to a consistent November date), the cycle has remained consistent since then. At this point, I haven't found any other country with *regularly* scheduled elections that go back farther than 1900. The Swiss parliamentary elections go back to 1931 on a regular 4-year cycle and the Mexican Presidential elections go back to 1934 on a regular 6-year cycle. Situations like the British parliament where no parliament can go more than a specific number of years *aren't* what I'm looking for. Any ideas?

Reading fixed-term election suggested looking at Norway, who come pretty close: they have had parliamentary elections every 4 years since 1945, and before the war, they had elections every 3 years from 1817 to 1936, except for one blip (a two-year gap between 1868 and 1870 - the articles don't give any information as to why). Of course, they were in a union with Sweden until 1905, so you might not count elections earlier than that anyway. Hmm... does anyone know why there apparently wasn't an election in 1939? 81.98.43.107 (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything to verify this, but my theory is that they changed the system from three-year terms to four-year terms in the period following the 1936 election. Hence, the next election would have been scheduled for September 1940, not September 1939. But in April 1940, the Germans invaded Norway, and there were no elections till after the end of the war in 1945. Had an election been scheduled for September 1939, its delay could not have been explained by the German invasion; and Norway declared its neutrality, so there was no involvement in the war in any other capacity to explain the delay either. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Norwegian version of the article on the election of 1936 says the parliament elected in 1936 changed the term of office from 3 to 4 years. This vote was on April 5th, 1938. But the Nazi invasion kept the next election from happening until 1945. By my personal criteria, this means that the start of the current cycle for the Norwegians is 1945. Naraht (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Althought Norway was in a union with Sweden, the two countries were ruled seperately. So, Norway had its constitution, institutions and elections, seperate from the Swedish ones.

As for the missing 1939 election, Jack is right: The election period was changed in 1938 (1938-04-05 to be precise) from three to four years, so that there was never meant to be a 1939 election, and the 1940 election was cancelled due to the occupation. V85 (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That info should go into the relevant articles if anyone can find good English sources. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some in our article on Vidkun Quisling (shameless plug) that you can borrow. - Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 22:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea on why the 1868-1870 two year gap (rather than three)?Naraht (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found any concrete evidence for this, but in 1869 the Constitution was amended to let parliament meet annually. Prior to 1869, parliament was elected for a three year period, but during that three year period, it only met once. Since 1869, parliament has met once a year, regardless of whether that period lasted for three or four years. My guess would be that because of the new, annual meetings, the 1871 election was 'preponed' to 1870. It would be unfair to force MPs who had been elected to serve in only one session of parliament to meet in two. (But, again, I haven't found any evidence spelling this out directly.) V85 (talk) 11:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. and so WP:OR. :), Please include it referenced in an appropriate English language article (and let me know!) even if referenced in NorwegianNaraht (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the original question, I appreciate that Norway has had fairly regularly scheduled elections with a couple of glitches, but I'm looking for them without glitches, so they can be expressed as Country X has had elections scheduled every Y years starting in year Z. For Norway it is "Norway has had selections scheduled every 4 years since 1945".Naraht (talk) 13:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psychologists/psychiatrists having sex with ex- patients[edit]

How can psychologists/psychiatrists have sex with ex-patients? Is there a cool-off period after stopping therapy? Is that absolutely impossible even if both parts are adults and the patient just had some minor non-impairing mental problem, like arachnophobia? Is that a legal or just ethical constrain? 83.58.230.255 (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a straight answer, but I found one 25-year-old survey "Ethics of Practice: The Beliefs and Behaviors of Psychologists as Therapists" (Kenneth S. Pope, Barbara G. Tabachnick, Patricia Keith-Spiegel) It appeared in American Psychologist, vol. 42, #11, pages 993-1006. The authors had "sent a survey questionnaire to 1,000 psychologists (500 men and 500 women) randomly selected from the members of Division 29 (Psychotherapy)." 456 psychologists responded.

Quote: "About half of the respondents believed that 'becoming sexually involved with a former client' was unethical. (This figure may be compared to the 6.4% who believe that becoming friends with a former client is unethical.) These beliefs seem consistent with the harm that can be associated with these relationships (Pope & Bouhoutsos, 1986; Pope, 1994), with the awarding of general and punitive damages in malpractice suits in which the sexual intimacies occurred only after termination (e.g., Whitesell v. Green, 1973), and with a multiyear study of the adjudications of state licensing boards and state ethics committees (Sell, Gottlieb, & Schoenfeld, 1986). The study found "that psychologists asserting that a sexual relationship had occurred only after the termination of the therapeutic relationship were more likely to be found in violation than those not making that claim (p. 504)."

See link for exact breakdown. Admittedly, it's not the most up-to-date study, and it's limited to the United States, but it might be a start for further research. ---Sluzzelin talk 18:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can psychologists/psychiatrists have sex with ex-patients?... lot of ways: "Missionary" position, doggy style, swinging from a trapeze, in a hammock... etc.. :>) Blueboar (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully the shrink has a vinyl couch, so they can hose it down before the next patient comes. StuRat (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Charming. Who invited him? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:35, 8 May 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Canada-France relationship Jean Chretien Francois Mitterrand[edit]

Did Canada and France have good relationship during Jean Chretien's and Francois Mitterrand's term in the 1990s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.115 (talk) 19:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes ... however Canada and France generally had a good relationship throughout the 20th Century... so that does not really mean much. If you are asking whether the relationship was in some way extra good during their terms... not particularly. Blueboar (talk) 21:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Vive_le_Québec_libre. 69.62.243.48 (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Chrétien became Prime Minister in the Fall of 1993, and François Mitterrand's second (and last) term as President ended in May of 1995. So they were not in power simultaneously for very long, and the last six months or so of Mitterrand's term, he was a lame duck, under a cohabitation government to boot. That time was the run-up to the 1995 Quebec Referendum, so it was a time of relative tension in the Canada-France-Quebec triangle, as both the federalist and separatist sides wanted France to be in their camp (or at least, not to be in the other side's camp). Mitterrand kept the traditional post-de Gaulle line of "not interfering without being indifferent". --Xuxl (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]