Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

March 27

NDP in northern Manitoba

According to our articles on them (1, 2, 3, and 4), all four of Manitoba's northernmost provincial ridings are safe seats for the New Democratic Party, with an NDP in Thompson since the early 1980s and in the other three since the 1960s. The articles also note that the four divisions' populations are well above average in percentages of First Nations residents. Is there any connection (i.e. do First Nations people tend to support NDP, like blacks tend to support the Democrats in the USA), or is it just a coincidence? Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the following academic paper, which is precisely about the topic of voting patterns in northern Manitoba: "First Nations Candidacy and On‐Reserve Voting in Manitoba: A Research Note" [1]. This page [2] links to another professor discussing the issue in Manitoba precisely, although I haven't watched the interview. There is no traditional association of First Nations votes with a particular party in Canada, and they have only had the right to vote since 1960. Other papers [3] [4] point out that participation in elections by First Nations members is traditionally quite low. I can't find nationwide estimates of First Nations voting preferences however, although such studies must exist. I'm probably not using the right search terms. --Xuxl (talk) 11:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Full disclosure: I am {long|short}" on straddle

I sometimes see journalists and bloggers end their articles with "Full disclosure: I am long INTC" or "I am short AMD". What's the proper way to give a "full disclosure" when one has a synthetic position in one of the mentioned stocks, where the payoff isn't monotonic on the price of the underlying (such as a straddle or iron condor)? Should one consider oneself "long" or "short" or "no position" based only on the sign of their delta at the current market price (which would make it easy to make a long position appear short or vice-versa using a narrow collar), or is there some way of disclosing a position that is neither necessarily long nor necessarily short? Neon Merlin 10:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UK ethnicity

People may say that they are Scottish or Irish or English or Welsh. How come people seldom say they are Celtic or Norman French or Norse Viking or Roman or Jute or Angle or Saxon? Maybe somewhere in UK history, all the old ethnicities pooled together into one melting pot and formed distinct nationalities (Scottish, Irish, English, or Welsh), which got pooled together into "British" as a single ethnic group. Some people may say "Muslim" or "Jewish" or "Zoroastrian" as their ethnicity, but I rarely hear this from "Catholics". Christians seem to be very sensitive in separating ethnicity and religion. 140.254.227.69 (talk) 17:27, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your first point is correct; all the British "Home Nations" are a melting-pot of ethnicities. In Scotland for instance, there were Picts, Gaels, Britons, Saxons and Vikings in residence before the end of the first millennium. I don't think many people would claim that "Muslim" was an ethnicity; in my part of London we have Muslims from India, Pakistan, Malaysia, Palestine, Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Nigeria, Algeria, Iraq, Bosnia, Turkey, Kurdistan and even some English ones (there may be more, but I haven't met any of them). Find a common ethnic thread out of that lot. Similarly, although Catholic congregations in London were traditionally dominated by Irish people and a few English recusants, since WWII there have been significant numbers of Italian, Spanish, West Indian and East European Catholics here. I have been to a service at my friend's Catholic church in Hackney where the services are in Lithuanian and I used to work for a Catholic who came from Goa which is now part of India. So no, there is no such thing as a Catholic ethnicity. Alansplodge (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's a relative recent development. Christians in Europe have defined their identity for centuries based on being Christian. Until the idea of the national identity started to creep in, and then they were French, German, and so on, first. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe. King Harold II and his army fought off the Christian Danes before he was killed by Christian Normans "et fuga verterunt Angli" (and the English fled). I'm sure Harold and everybody else thought he was English. Alansplodge (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was clear back then that people came from different regions, but that wasn't such a big deal. They thought in different terms, and one of the most prominents elements of your identity was certainly your religion. They even would accept a foreign born monarch, as long as he were from the right royal house, and even if said foreign monarch couldn't speak the language at all. That's unthinkable today. OsmanRF34 (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that Great Britain didn't have a national identity when they asked German-speaking George I to take the throne in 1714 or Greece when they appointed the Bavarian Prince Otto king in 1832? King's weren't routinely required to make speeches in those days, so the right pedigree was more important than what language they spoke. Alansplodge (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the original question, the reason people don't say they are Jute or Norman French or whatever anymore is those ethnicities don't exist anymore. Ethnicity is not an immutable, unmovable concept which never changes. In 600 it may have made sense to draw distinctions between Jutes and Angles, but in 2014, not so much. Those groups don't exist in modern Britain, so how could anyone identify with them. Ethnicity changes and varies over time, it is constantly fluid and shifting and changing. People are mobile, they intermarry, they develop new cultural connections, new cultures develop, old ones fade from memory, etc. etc. --Jayron32 02:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our article Genetic history of the British Isles has more details. Alansplodge (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or not at all. Ethnicity is a cultural thing, not a genetic thing. Certainly, there will be some overlap (for example, people who live in close proximity tend to share common language and music and art and religion; they also tend to have sex with each other) but that overlap doesn't mean that ethnicity is genetically determined. A person's cultural connections are not caused by their genetics in any meaningful way. Patrice de Mac-Mahon and Nicolas Sarkozy are French. They speak, think, act, and have cultural connections with other French people. That Mac-Mahon had Irish ancestors (and thus, shares genes with them) didn't make him think, act, or have cultural connections with the Irish. --Jayron32 12:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron is correct. It is a cultural thing. What you are talking about, rather than ancestry, is identity. Identities change over time. I know where some of my ancestors are from, but I am not my ancestors. I have a US passport, I was raised in the US, and I am American. That's who I identify with, and that's what people identify me as. If I had really strong familial ties to my ancestors' homelands, I could identify as an Irish-American, etc but even so, my identity would be a result of how people see me and how I see myself. I absolutely would have ancestors from the Roman Empire, but I am absolutely not Roman or Viking. Not only do I not have any sort of Roman citizenship whatsoever, nor any social ties to any community of Ancient Romans, but the Roman Empire hasn't existed in centuries. Nobody identifies me as Roman, and I don't identify myself as Roman. Ergo, I have no Roman identity. Falconus^{p t c} 16:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Stintz

Is Karen Stintz, running for this year's mayoral election in Toronto, a Jew? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.33.80 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 27 March 2014‎

Nothing on the page Karen Stintz suggests that she is Jewish. It does state that she attended a Catholic high school, though that doesn't necessarily say anything about her personal religious beliefs. - Eron^Talk 17:45, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on the assumption that her beliefs are separated from her family's beliefs, and that her family's beliefs have nothing to do with sending her to an all-girls Catholic school. 140.254.227.92 (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it would. But not every family who sends their child to a Catholic high school is Catholic, at least not in Ontario where this particular school is located. See the first question here. And not every person whose family is Catholic continues to profess that faith as an adult.- Eron^Talk 20:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Her campaign web site contains no mention of religion that I can see, and neither does anything else about her that I could Google up. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conscription in Israel

I was reading this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Israel_Defense_Forces

which says Israel is the only country in the world with a mandatory military service requirement for women. Yet, I recently read an unrelated news article about Norway. It mentioned it being the first NATO country with mandatory military service for women. I checked this Wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_Armed_Forces

and it says the same.

Is there something I am misunderstanding about what is considered conscription or does the Israel article need updating?

Yes, the Israel article needs updating, the sources it uses are from before Norway changed its military service policy.

edit: Actually, it seems Eritrea conscripts women as well; I've updated the article. - Lindert (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to Conscription#Drafting of women, "As of 2013, countries that were drafting women into military service included Bolivia,[35] Chad,[36] Cuba,[37] Eritrea,[38][39][40] Israel,[38][39][41] Libya,[38][42] North Korea,[38][39][43] Sudan,[44] and Tunisia.[39]" --Bowlhover (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 28

16th century Lutheranism

How did people practice Lutheranism in the 16th century under Martin Luther? Is it possible to revive traditional Lutheranism without the later movements (Pietism, Evangelicalism, Lutheran Orthodoxy, etc.)? 140.254.227.39 (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Book of Concord, which is the foundational doctrine of Lutheranism. --Jayron32 18:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So... is that book considered sacred or holy or canonical in Lutheranism, along with the Bible? What bible version do Lutherans use? Do they still use Martin Luther's own bible? Are there other sacred texts besides the Bible and the Book of Concord? Do Lutherans base all their practices from those two books, or are some practices and scriptural interpretations based on the clergy? 164.107.189.137 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to ask: in what ways are the lives of monks and nuns under Lutheranism different from the lives of ordinary laypersons (outside of monastic life)? How can a person incorporate Lutheran thought in one's everyday life outside of monasticism? 164.107.189.137 (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lutherans would not consider the writings of a mere man to rank alongside the Bible, as they would consider that to be sacreligious. It's just a book that outlines the thoughts of a man, one with whom they happens to agree with. I'm also not sure that there are any Lutheran monks or nuns. --TammyMoet (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Luther himself was a former monk who married a former nun. I've never heard of any Lutheran monastic order. Luther's Bible translation into German is still widely used in Germany, although it has been revised many times, and the current version differs considerably from Luther's final edition of 1546. Lutherans, following Luther himself, have always firmly held to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, meaning that the Bible is the only infallible standard for the Lutheran churches. That does not mean that they don't have confessions or Church regulations, but all these are subject to correction from the Bible. - Lindert (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Lutherans do have monastic orders. 164.107.189.137 (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source or example, please. 176.10.249.240 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few Protestant monastic orders, but they are so rare as to barely be noticeable compared to the much more prominent Catholic and Orthodox orders. See Christian monasticism#Lutheran Church for a description of Lutheran-based monastic orders. It does bear noting that all such orders are less than 100 years old, and are extremely unusual in their rarity. --Jayron32 02:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, only the Bible is considered Holy Scripture by Lutherans (and any other mainstream Christian sect, Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox). The Book of Concord is an exposition of Lutheran Theology and Doctrine, not scripture. --Jayron32 02:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article 4 of the Norwegian Constitution: "The King shall at all times profess the Evangelical-Lutheran religion." 84.209.89.214 (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese influence on Wicca?

Do Wiccan Neo-pagans draw influence from the ancient Chinese or something? According to this website, it seems to suggest so. How do Wiccans interpret concepts such as yin and yang? And how come the Chinese concepts of yin and yang make their way to a European witch-cult religion during pre-Christian times? Has anybody done research on true Wicca beliefs that were actually held by ancient/pre-modern witches? 140.254.226.237 (talk) 17:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wicca is a modern religion that, as our article explains, includes New Age influences, including from Eastern religions. Wicca has no direct relationship with pre-Christian European religions, though it draws on research about those religions. Our articles Druid and Celtic polytheism discuss research about ancient Celtic religion, though the latter article is flagged as substandard, and we have an article on Germanic paganism. Marco polo (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

140.254.226.237 -- If you try to find self-conscious "pre-modern witchcraft" with broad philosophical/religious views, then you enter into a strange historical netherworld of items like Aradia, or the Gospel of the Witches, where it's hard to know what is fake, semi-fake, or actually authentic. Margaret Murray's Witch-cult hypothesis is fairly uniformly rejected by mainstream historians. Any Chinese influence on 20th-century syncretistic witchcraft is more likely to be mediated by the writings of Richard Wilhelm and his son than anything... AnonMoos (talk) 01:09, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medical/Dental/Optical insurance in USA

In the United States, insurance for dental and optical services are separate from "normal" medical insurance. I never could understand why these are treated as completely separate fields. For total health insurance, a person would have to obtain separate policies for medical, dental and optical coverage. (Certainly a few plans cover all, but they are still treated as individual fields of coverage.) Is this the same in other countries? Why is health insurance segmented in this manner? --209.203.125.162 (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in the United States, health insurance can be used for optical, dental, and general medical services. Here's a website that talks about health insurance covering eye care. So, your premise is false. Personal experience. 164.107.189.137 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, optical tends to cover routine eye work, while serious eye issues (such as retinal detachments and cataracts) are typically included with the standard health insurance. It would take some research to discover if the separation of coverage is due to insurance laws or simply due to how the various companies want to do business. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To understand the situation, you have to look at insurance historically as something that at first covered catastrophic issues, and which people bought out of pocket, moving toward being a fringe benefit of employment at better companies, with expansion of coverage being driven by tax policy. Wages paid outright were taxed outright, but increases in medical coverage came with a tax write off for the employer. Historically, things like routine optic and dental coverage weren't ideal on return, since employees tend to have either good teeth or not, bad eyes or not, while everyone breaks a bone or gets appendicitis. There's no matter of logic in this other than tax policies and competition between employers for employees and between unions and employers. There was a huge controversy in NJ a few years back when Governor Christie negotiated to have teachers contribute 5% toward their insurance, which traditionally had come without any paycheck deduction. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis touches on something which is relevant. Many people have fine vision (myself included) and don't require vision insurance for many many years. If their eyes don't start going bad until their 50s, why would they want to pay for something through their 20s, 30s, and 40s if they likely won't need it. And as Bugs said, catastrophic things like detached retinas are generally covered under general medical insurance. So, if my (or anyone else) eyesight starts getting bad, then I can probably wait around a few months until I can renew my medical insurance and sign up for vision insurance at the same time. Dismas|^(talk) 00:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the heading, the poster also asked about "other countries". In Ontario, Canada, the mandatory provincial health plan (OHIP) fully covers those "normal" medical expenses but typically does not cover dental, optical, physiotherapy, or prescription drug expenses, although there are exceptions (notably, prescription drugs are covered for people over 65). In the professional jobs I've had, the employer typically provided a plan that covered most or all of these expenses. Other provinces may differ, and probably do. --50.100.193.30 (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Economics problem

I am told that MC=1/4Q, what does it mean? -- 109.65.36.11 (talk · contribs) 22:57, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It means that Q = 4e/c. Nyttend (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly something to do with Marginal cost. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is referring to the relationship between the marginal cost and the quantity being produced. What I don't understand is, how would a supply curve look like, if it had the formula (MC=1/4Q) to describe the marginal cost. I simply don't understand how to go about it. -- 23:40, 28 March 2014‎ 109.65.36.11

Do you already know what the graph of y = 0.25x looks like? 86.157.148.65 (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 29

Is Other People's Money a good date film?

What do the reviews say? 180.159.121.247 (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can type "Other People's Money" and the word "reviews" into Google faster than I can. --Jayron32 05:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? Did you geolocate my IP? This is what a reference looks like. 180.159.121.247 (talk) 10:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See, that wasn't so hard now, was it. Good luck with the rest of your research. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no cosmopolitan love guru, but in my opinion, it's much more romantic to watch a movie at home. Cook her/him something nice, pop a bottle of non-cola and stream away. Theatres have way too many eyes. If it's a first date and too many eyes is a good thing, I suggest standup comedy. Laughter is good medicine, whether you're looking for "fun" or just fun. Also more intimate than a movie, in the totally platonic sense. Even if the comic sucks, you can laugh at him together. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:53, March 29, 2014 (UTC)

After geolocating and checking out that movie date (in the time sense), I'm curious. Is this movie just late to theatres there, or were you already staying home? I also just got why your geolocation comment made sense. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:58, March 29, 2014 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes gives it 33% with the consensus of "unfunny". Roger Ebert seemed to find it good enough. No word on whether anyone has ever scored from it. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:07, March 29, 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd have thought that you could probably find something better. On the other hand, I once took a girlfriend to see the film Bound which - unbeknownst to me - contained an extended lesbian scene in the middle. --86.182.224.223 (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are we looking for a film that would make the "are you serious" attitude on a first date attractive? Or just an objective opinion of this film? If the former, I am reminded of the poem For Anne Gregory. μηδείς (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:25, March 29, 2014 (UTC)

Only if you're dating a banker or accountant. Oooh, a hostile takeover really makes me tingle! Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 30

Ethnic attrition rates among second and third generation Salvadoran Americans

I was looking over at the charts on page 36-38 of this Rand study & found some interesting things that brought several questions to mind. [5]

According to the charts on page 36-38, 2nd and 3rd generation Salvadoran Americans are less likely to identify with the country of their parents & with the term Hispanic/Latino to describe themselves than any other 2nd generation Latinos. The ethnic attrition rate for that group is a whopping 77.6% overall. Contrast that with 2nd generation Mexican Americans where the ethnic attrition rate for that group is just 5.4%. On the other hand, the ethnic attrition rate for first generation Salvadoran immigrants to the U.S is 3.1%, which is average.

According to the charts on page 37, for 2nd generation Salvadoran Americans where both of the parents come from El Salvador, the ethnic attrition rate is 23.6%, higher than all other 2nd generation Latinos whose biological parents came from only one Latin American country. However, if the mother came from El Salvador, but not the father, the ethnic attrition rate for that group of 2nd generation Salvadoran Americans is a whopping 83.8%, but if the father comes from El Salvador, but not the mother, the ethnic attrition rate for the son or daughter is an incredible 88.1%. These numbers are much, much higher than all 2nd generation Latino groups. According to the chart on page 38, the ethnic attrition rate for third 3rd generation Salvadoran Americans where both sides has Salvadoran is 25.7%, still significantly higher than other Latino groups, but for third generation Salvadoran Americans where one side of the family is Salvadoran, the attrition rate is at 96.7%, virtually everyone. In contrast, the ethnic attrition rate for third generation Mexican Americans whose both sides of the family are Mexican is at 1.8% and in which one side of the family is Mexican, the ethnic attrition rate is 44.8%.

So, why is ethnic attrition much greater among 2nd & 3rd generation Salvadoran Americans? What is it about El Salvador that a substantial amount of them seem to not care or like where their parents came from unlike other Hispanic American groups? Why do they assimilate with the U.S today so well? Willminator (talk) 04:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Villages in pre-modern Ireland

Comments in a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ireland#Civil_parishes_vs_villages confuse me, but as it's a behavioural question there, my question would be thoroughly out of place and unhelpful if asked there. User:Aymatth2 says:

I have the feeling that for long periods the parish was the main unit, not the village. Cottages were scattered, each with their own plot of land. Tinkers and peddlers would come by, there would be a fair every few months and the town was only a couple of hours walk away. But most parishes did not have a central village with shops, smithy, pubs and offices. The focus was the church or chapel, not the village. Many parishes that were once densely populated, now deserted, never had a village at their center.

I always assumed that in mediæval through early modern Ireland, along with the rest of temperate farm country in western Europe (e.g. not Alps, not places near Hammerfest, not the Schwarzwald), would have been inhabited by people generally living in villages and going out each day to farm the surrounding countryside, since they'd have a small amount of society and still be living close to the fields, whether strips or enclosed fields or something else. Why would people live in scattered cottages instead of in little villages? Nyttend (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lets turn the question around. Why live in villages. A: For mutual protection, commerce, and industry. Without any one of those three there is no advantage. If you have ever tended a vegetable plot you will have discovered that rabbits and deer are hungry 24/7. Wondering too far away from your crops for any length of time was never an option. Hawthorn hedges do not keep hungry critters out of any field for long – even worse in areas with no hedges. As far as I know, large neolithic settlements on hills, were inhabited by primarily herders and on lakes by fishermen who were less dependant on agriculture but I would have to look that up to check to for exceptions.--Aspro (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) I don't know, but in rural parts of Ireland people still do. If you drive around rural Ireland, you'll see plenty of isolated houses, and very few clusters smaller than a town.

According to J H Andrews, "The geographical element in Irish history", in A New History of Ireland Vol 1: Prehistoric and Early Ireland, edited by Dáibhí Ó Cróinín, the lack of villages is the result of the higher social status of stock raisers than arable farmers. Livestock requires a lot of pastureland, which makes living close together difficult. The social focus is not the weekly market but the less frequent livestock fair. Where there were clusters of farmsteads, they seem to have been ephemeral, not lasting long enough to build a church or an inn and gain some kind of permanence. --Nicknack009 (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The importance of pastoralism is certainly a key factor in the lack of nucleated settlements, or villages, in premodern Ireland, or more accurately, in pre-Norman Ireland, since in areas of Ireland ruled by the Normans, according to this source, villages did develop in the later middle ages in areas of eastern Ireland dominated by Normans. Another important explanatory factor, briefly mentioned at the beginning of the same source, is that Ireland never underwent the imposition of the Roman villa system or, until the arrival of the Normans, the subsequent development of manorialism. In most of western Europe, nucleated settlements were associated with manorial estates. The lord of the manor set aside a part of the manor for the residences of the the manor's serfs. The manor house, parish church, and often a mill were nearby. Many western European villages owe their existence to medieval manorial estates. Again turning the question around, why would people live in villages next to nosy, difficult, or loud neighbors when they could have their own little private farmsteads? Marco polo (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reason as for the archetypal village nowadays which according to the joke provides two pubs and a post office. Though actually a pub would normally run the post office and a small shop too. Dmcq (talk) 14:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese depiction of Garuda - Who is the artist?

Can someone please find out who drew the modern depiction of Garuda on this page? I've tried a Tineye reverse image search to see if the whole thing is available, but haven't had any luck. Thanks.

http://tupian.baike.com/a2_52_66_01200000194472136324667684583_jpg.html

--Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 31

Claustrophobia

Claustrophobia is a genuine medical condition (or disorder). Does anyone know what they (the authorities) do if they have a genuinely claustrophobic prisoner who (normally) would be required to stay in a tight and enclosed space of a small prison cell for virtually the entire day for years on end? I can't imagine that a truly claustrophobic person could tolerate those conditions. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some prisons have more of a dormitory setup, with large rooms packed with beds. So, they might transfer them to such a place. Alternatively, if the infirmary has bigger rooms, they could keep the prisoner there, at least until a transfer to a prison with bigger rooms could be arranged. StuRat (talk) 12:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was excluding dormitory-style rooms from consideration, as I was really thinking about the very dangerous type of criminals (whom the prison will want to keep locked up as tightly as possible). Also, I am not sure that a room being "bigger" really addresses the concerns of claustrophobia? A true claustrophobic would have problems in the enclosed space, regardless of it being a little bigger. I think. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the WHO International Classification of Diseases claustrophobia is listed as one of several "D40.2 Specific (isolated) phobias" and though it is not someone's genuine medical condition just because the someone says so, it can be entered as a mitigating plea at a criminal trial. Wikipedia will not give anyone legal advice on doing that and whether any given legal sentencing authority will consider the plea is unwise to predict. Such pleas have to be supported by qualified medical witnesses able to convince a court or parole board that the detainee is subject to clinical Panic disorder, possibly assessed on the Panic Disorder Severity Scale. In the USA a defender may petition for a case to be tried in a Mental health court especially if the defendant has no history of violent crimes, and has an Axis I diagnosis as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Note that the DSM-5 is a manual recognized in many countries for assessment and diagnosis of mental disorders but it does not include guidelines for treatment of any disorder, so a judge cannot cite the DSM as basis for his ruling. In the UK responsibility for mental health of prisoners is formalised in the Mental Health Acts of 1983 and 2007. These deal with conditions for discharging a patient to hospital, possible forced medication and access to independent mental health advocates. In the USA a constitutional defence could build on the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution that states that "cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted". Recently (2007) celebutante Paris Hilton was allowed to [http://www.foxnews.com/story/2007/06/07/citing-medical-reasons-sheriff-sends-paris-hilton-home-to-finish-sentence/ finish her jail sentence in home confinement for not obviously physical "medical" reasons which may have comprised claustrophobia and/or crying a lot for not providing "beauty and excitement to (most of) our otherwise mundane lives.". 84.209.89.214 (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They would have a tough time proving that standard incarceration is either cruel or unusual, let alone both. Also, maybe the claustrophobic could have thought of that problem before they committed the crime. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, The Very Rev Pastor Bugs DD. No sermonising here, please. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:27, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the sermonizing by the IP. Feel free to close both comments down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Africa in 1991

Did racial discrimination still exist in South Africa during 1991 and 1992? --Aśter Fartiyet (talk) 12:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personal discrimination will always exist. Do you mean officially sanctioned government discrimination ? Do you include reverse discrimination ? StuRat (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1993 established universal non-racial adult suffrage. See the article Apartheid about conditions that lead up to this. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 12:46, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is the hijab or burqa a religious garment or cultural garment?

I know in Islam, it is considered modest to wear a hijab or burqa. I am wondering whether this particular headdress is cultural/tribal or religious. If a Muslim woman were to convert to Christianity in England or America, then would she have to switch the burqa or hijab with a Sunday hat or modest Christian headdress? Or is Christianity part of her new faith but the burqa or hijab is merely the product of her culture? 140.254.227.70 (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --Jayron32 14:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated. Muhammad only said that "all men and women should dress modestly", not that women need to keep their faces covered, and not all Muslims believe that, either. So, it's really a bit of culture which got incorporated into some sects of Islam, but nonetheless those women in those sects feel it is a religious obligation to cover their faces, despite Muhammad never having said that. Then there are other sects that interpret "modesty" as covering their hair, but not their faces, and others that don't believe covering their hair is required, either. StuRat (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That final sentence perfectly describes most Christian "sects". My mother and grandmothers would never enter a church without head covering. (And of course, gentlemen removed theirs.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A little more detail in The Qur’an and Hijab. Alansplodge (talk) 15:30, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One only has to look at photos from the country with the world's largest population of Muslims, Indonesia, to see that the hijab and burqa are not all that common there. Many women wear a head covering, but that's not all that silly in such a climate. HiLo48 (talk) 03:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is not to say that the wearing of the headscarf is not promoted as an obligation for a Muslim woman (and considered a symbol of piety). You should see my Facebook wall sometimes... Indonesia's become increasingly pro-headscarf since 2000, although under Suharto (in the mid-80s, especially) they were almost unheard of. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In other words... cultural, but promoted as a religious requirement in many instances. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maselow's hierarchy

I think I recently read that Maselow actually never put his needs hierarchy into a 'pyramid', although that is how most people now know it. I can't find the reference for that, if its true. If anyone could point me to a credible source that refutes Maselow's pyramid (not his underlying hierarchy framework), it would help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.173.50.222 (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in Maslow's hierarchy of needs, he didn't use a pyramid. The hierarchy is simply a list, and the pyramid is a good way to illustrate it. And it's in reverse order. The "base" (literally) needs come first (i.e. survival), and the top of the pyramid, the "pinnacle", would actually be the last item on the list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:53, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retro sex offenders

any pro bono lawyers in st.Louis city or Missouri that handle retro sex offender registration?

anyone that helps people do pro se work on cases?

any support groups for retro sex offenders? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeromeanthony43 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What's a "retro" sex offender ? StuRat (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a guess but maybe those who offended, got caught, have gone through the courts, and their prison time and now are seeking counseling legal or otherwise? Though we may never know since Medeis will be deleting this thread momentarily. Dismas|^(talk) 00:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for a direct answer, we can't provide opinions or recommendations other than to say "consult a lawyer". This is one of those cases where your local Yellow Pages and some of your own homework will benefit you. Only you know exactly what you're looking for in a lawyer. Other places to check might be with local law schools and colleges with law programs. Dismas|^(talk) 00:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your local bar association can provide help finding a lawyer. Check out The Missouri Bar Association website. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 1

British pound and friends

I've been researching the Pound sterling and the role of the Bank of England as a central bank today, and there are a number of questions I've been unable to pin down, perhaps because they are common knowledge in the UK or conversely, obscure. Any citations to specific laws or other sources would be greatly appreciated.

I know the Royal Mint physically creates UK coins, but who tells the mint how many to make? The Bank of England? HM Treasury?
I found the law where the Manx pound has apparently been created by the Manx legislature which ordered it to be backed by Bank of England notes. Is the same thing true for the Jersey pound and Guernsey pound? (I couldn't find a legal citation.) Those articles say that it is similar to issuances in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Perhaps that is true with respect to how the bills are backed, but the Bank of England website says it only regulates the amount of notes issued in Scotland and Northern Ireland, not the dependencies. If the legal authority comes from the baliwick parliament rather than the UK parliament that would also be dissimilar.
Manx law makes any currency that is legal tender anywhere in the UK legal tender on the Isle of Man. Is that also true in Jersey and Guernsey?
Did the UK parliament pass a law devolving the currency-setting and issuing power to the local governments in the Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories? If so, when?
It's clear the Falkland Islands pound, Gibraltar pound, and Saint Helena pound are locally authorized, but I guess I could ask the same questions about what UK parliament law, if any, devolved that power, and if they are backed by Bank of England notes specifically like on the Isle of Man?

Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 01:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was up late on the evening of Friday December 21st

I was up late on the evening of Friday December 21st

2012. Shannon, my girlfriend, and our two sons were fast asleep in bed. The night seemed unusually silent. I believe it was quiet because it was the night of the Mayan apocalypse. I was not tired and I had some time to kill. So I decided to watch a movie on Netflix. I choose the movie chariots of the gods. The movie was a 1970 adaptation of a book by Erich Von Dankien. The movie was about out of place items in history. Before watching this movie I have seen Youtube videos on this subject. The front of the cover had an astronaut in front of Pakal’s tombstone on the moon. Well that pretty much sold the movie for me. I watched the movie all the way to the part about Pakal’s tombstone. The movie claimed that the Mayans had alien contact and that Pakal was an Astronaut. Pakal’s Tombstone immediately caught my attention. There was just something there I could not put my finger on.

So after the movie I downloaded a picture of Pakal’s

tombstone and noticed some strange things immediately. The first I saw was a sword being stuck though Pakal’s body. I flipped the picture the other way and noticed that the picture made an outline of a cup. I took a closer look at the tombstone and saw a mushroom in the middle of the stone. I started to stare at the stone and realized that there is a recipe in it. I stared at the stone for a few hours that night. While I was looking at it I had my first vision. The vision was of Pakal and his wife. I saw Pakal’s wife finding the flower of life and picking them to eat. She took them back to Pakal’s home which was a hut. Pakal’s wife cooked the flower in a black cauldron and gave some to her husband when it was cooked. Pakal drank the flower of life stew and immediately fell into spirit. Pakal then showed me what he had seen through small images I got off the stone. One of the visions was of the meteor that hit the earth and destroyed the dinosaurs. Pakal showed me that he knew that the Spanish were coming to destroy their culture. Pakal also showed me a map of my location. There was also an x over the Denver Colorado area and another mark near Georgia on the map. I saw the images first as a picture than as a movie in my mind. I started to fill the pictures out on the stone. I used the program Adobe Photoshop to draw on the picture. I slowly filled in the outlines into miniature pictures. I worked on this stone for 3 months filling out the small lines. Trying to guess what this stone was telling me. I went around and talked to my friends about it and most of them thought I was crazy. Nobody at all could see what I was showing them. I got a little obsessed with the picture, and stopped paying attention to my family. My girlfriend got upset at the time I was spending on the picture. March 10th, 2013 I found the key! The picture told of how to grow Shrooms using bacteria from the whale and the horse. The upper part told a story of how to get the bacteria from hot springs. It told me to wait until the whales migrated by the coast. Go to a hot spring and wait till 3 am when the tides change. This makes the bacteria suck up from the ocean and vent out of the hot springs. It showed how to mix the water with the grain and with the manure. I noticed a rabbit in most of the pictures pointing things out. This I believe is the White Rabbit. The White Rabbit is another name for the mushroom mycelium. I am not sure how but the white rabbit is all over me. The rabbit is the one who is giving me my visions and showing me the way. It is like the rabbit is following me. Who is this White Rabbit? There is something to this I do not yet understand. I am not sure if the picture is actually there or am I doing this to myself. Am I the only one who can see this? I have no answer to this yet. The pictures that I have included in this testament are pictures I got off the stone. Amazingly enough I found the key to getting the whale bacteria three weeks before the migration. I decided to go ahead and try and grow some cows using the recipe. I doubt anyone could resist the temptation. One of the things shown to me in the stone is how Excalibur got taken from the people. Excalibur use to grow near hot springs and grew a week after the whales went by. Excalibur is the Easter egg everyone is looking for on Easter day. The roots to Excalibur are gold and run as veins in the ground. This is why gold is the god element. When our race decided to mine out the gold we took out the bacteria that produced the unicorn.