Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 May 1

= May 1 =

Is it possible that North Korea torpedoed Deepwater Horizon?
Hi. There is an ongoing discussion here. Could the news reports be true, or is this some kind of prank? If this is possible, should these reports be included in the article, or is there some other explanation for this? Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 02:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There are no "news reports". The websites this story is appearing on belong to "alternative news", survivalists, and other sundry nutters (The EU Times is a white supremacist and conspiracy theory website, by the way).  Apart from anything else, the US government doesn't have the power to order a "news blackout" on anything (indeed, if it tried, that'd be a massive story in itself).  And I'm failing to see how the best way to clean up an oil leak is to drop a nuclear bomb on it.  The whole thing really is a load of rubbish from the best "make stuff up that appeals to your worldview" school of internet journalism. FiggyBee (talk) 02:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The US government has absolutely had successful "News Blackouts" see Kidnapping of David Rohde for a recent example (true, that was the slightly more competent New York Times doing most of the work, but still, proof of concept).  Still, in this case, I think "unlikely" is an understatement. Buddy431 (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed that this is pretty rubbish. The whole story is ridiculous on a number of levels. The idea that Obama needs/wants to drop a B83 on the oil slick is charmingly crazy. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A US conservative commentator with a wide audience seems to think Obama blew up the rig for political purposes. 69.228.170.24 (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we all know about Mr. Limbaugh's long-standing commitment to journalist ethics. (eye roll) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:13, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I heard it was PETA so that they could get lots of photos of oil covered pelicans. Googlemeister (talk) 16:23, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire
In a decree following the 1512 Diet of Cologne, the name was officially changed to Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (German: Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation, Latin: Imperium Romanum Sacrum Nationis Germanicæ) [5].

Why?174.3.123.220 (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See Imperial Reform. During the late 1400's and early 1500's a series of reforms was undertaken to reorganize the HRE.  These were undertaken in a series of Diets (Congresses or conferences) including one in Worms and one in Cologne, and another in Augsburg, likely even more.  The most important effect of these conferences was the formalization of the Imperial Circle.  You'll notice that the circles never included the non-German lands.  Even prior to these reforms, the southern third of the HRE had was de facto independent from it.  These reforms, and other political events at the time, basically made de jure what had already been going on in practice for years.  Partly because of their exclusion from the Circles, and thus the real power in the HRE, the Italian territories and the Swiss Confederacy withdrew from the HRE.  Also around this time, the Holy Roman Emperors stopped going to Rome to be crowned.  After the early 1500s, all further emperors were only "Emperors-elect" as none actually went through the crowning process.  The change in name was a recognition of the changing nature of the HRE, from a central-European state stretching from Italy to the North Sea, whose emperor was crowned by (and thus received official sanction from) the Italian pope, into a state that was an almost exclusively German kingdom.  There were also some political concerns regarding non-German princes standing for election to the HRE; IIRC there was serious consideration given to Henry VIII of England possibly standing for such a position; Henry's Spanish cousin became Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor; he also had ties to the French royal family.  The addition of the "Of the German Nation" may have been to make clear that the HRE was a strictly german state.  Charles V specifically divided up his lands, giving his younger brother Ferdinand (pending election) the HRE, while giving the rest of his lands to his son Philip.  Prior to becoming emperor, it should be noted that Ferdinand was alread Archduke of Austria and King of Bohemia, thus already "in" with the Germans, while Philip was not.  -- Jayron  32  03:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So your saying that Ferdinand already had Austria (german), while his son did not, so Ferdinand was German, or, ""in" with the (g)(G)ermans"?174.3.123.220 (talk) 04:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sort of. Its complicated, because European nobility and royalty was essential extra-national; that is outside of the normal concerns of citizenship and nationality.  After all, the Hapsburg dynasty, of which Charles himself (and his son Philip) was a member, was essentially south German (today: Switzerland, see Habsburg Castle).  However, Charles immediate parentage was a Spanish mother and a Burgundian father, Charles himself was King of Spain before he became Emperor, though his early life was spent in Ghent, Flanders today in Belgium, but then part of the lands ruled by the County of Burgundy.  So just look at what one might consider Charles' nationality: He's Swiss-German/Flemish/Spanish/French/Burgundian yada yada yada.  The same would hold true for his brother, Ferdinand, and his son, Philip, only even more complicated.  Ferdinand was granted the HRE in large part because, as ruler of two of HRE states, Austria and Bohemia, he was far more familiar with Central European politics, and likewise the main players in central Europe were far more familiar with him.  Philip was something of an unknown quantity; he had been raised, like his father, in the Low Countries; and had little experience working with the mess that was HRE politics.  It was a rather pragmatic solution to Charles's succession.  Given his massive personal empire, if he passed the entirety on to only one person, it would have likely upset the Balance of power in Europe.
 * By the late 1400's, the HRE was fast becomeing an inefficient state. All around it, other countries were being organized into strong, centralized nation-states (a new concept for the late middle ages), while the elective and surpa-national nature of the HRE made it somewhat of an anachronism.  France was coming into its own, consolidating itself out of what had been basically a bunch of semi-independent duchies.  England had just gotten over the Wars of the Roses, and was now a highly centralized state under the Tudors.  Russia was formed out of a bunch of independent states and stopped paying tribute to the Mongols.  Modern Sweden was on its way to becoming a major power, after the dissolution of the Kalmar Union.  The HRE could not have survived in that environment, which is why the Imperial Reform became necessary.  Like in the rest of Europe, the reforms represented the earliest attempts at a nascent "German nation", and to keep the Empire in control of the German states that made it up (hence the organization of the Imperial Circles).  For an example of what happened to a country that didn't undergo such reforms, see Free election and the Partitions of Poland.  -- Jayron  32  05:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the last sentence. Poland was partitioned because the reforms there went too far – it was too democratic, too tolerant and too centralized. — Kpalion(talk) 12:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The European Union is the Holy Roman Empire without the crown and sceptre, and Papal blessings.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:11, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, not really. Not unless one wants to appear smarter than one is by making reference to an earlier supra-national state, even though such metaphor really doesn't hold up to deeper scrutiny.  -- Jayron  32  13:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not trying to appear like anything other than what I am, and what we all are-namely Wikipedia editors. Don't try to ascribe possible motives for other people's personal opinions; of which we are all entitled to own, however they might run contrary to yours.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right. That was rather snarky of me.  I apologize for doing so.  -- Jayron  32  15:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's OK. I should also apologise for making a flippant comment, after you had gone to the trouble of explaining in accurate and concise detail, the intricacies of the Holy Roman Empire. I'm sorry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It was't a completely stupid statement, Jeanne, but from an exclusively territorial point of view, the EU goes too far north and not far enough south to be the new Roman Empire. Now if it didn't accept the Pols, the Czecks, the Scandis and east Germans, and if France had retained Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia, Lebanon and Syria, if Italy had retained Lybia, England had retained Egypt, if we accepted Turkey, and finally if the scots declared independance from both Britain and the EU, we could talk :-)--Lgriot (talk) 04:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Aren't you confusing the Holy Roman Empire with the Roman Empire, Lgriot? As for the HRE/EU comparison, I'd say that one thing they have in common is that they both were/are sui generis entities that defy any classification. And that's about it for similarities. — Kpalion(talk) 12:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, I read far too fast Jeanne's statement, and missed the word "Holy" completely.... Just made a fool of myself. --Lgriot (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't make a fool of yourself, you just made a mistake; which we all do in our lives. We are human beings, after all. Anyroad, it's no big deal. Both the Roman and the Holy Roman Empiries occurred centuries ago, and the EU is a modern reality.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Lame duck PM?
American here. Curious but ignorant. I understand that a new UK parliament will be elected next Thursday (or most of it, anyway). Hypothetically, let's suppose there's a hung parliament in which the Tories are the largest party. On Friday morning, what is everyone's status? Given the hungness of parliament, it would seem impossible to instantly christen anyone "prime minister elect". Instead, I suppose there must be negotiations between the parties. During this period, I would assume that Brown would remain PM out of pure inertia, but does he? When is the precise moment that one person stops being PM and someone else starts? 129.174.184.114 (talk) 03:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A Hung parliament is rarely called in Westminster system of democracies. They are known as minority governments instead. The party with the most seats still wins, and its leader the Prime Minister-elect, simple. As to when does this person becomes the PM officially, that's when he/she is ceremonially appointed by the sovereign (the Queen) or governor general and his/her cabinet is sworn in. --Kvasir (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true. A hung parliament is a parliament in which no party has a majority - that is the name that is almost always used for that situation in a Westminster system (the term "balanced parliament" has been used by some small parties that want a hung parliament in the UK). That can result in a minority government, but it can also result in a coalition government (or a new election). Having the most seats doesn't make you PM. The current PM remains PM until they resign (or are forced out by a no-confidence vote, which won't happen for a couple of weeks at least). --Tango (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's happened. See United Kingdom general election, February 1974 which resulted in a hung parliament and caused a bit of a constitutional crisis and led to a complex batch of coalitions and resignations, ultimately resulting in a second election that same year (United Kingdom general election, October 1974). It was a bit of a mess. American myself too, BTW, so I'll leave it to a Brit to fill in the rest of the details. -- Jayron  32  03:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What I'm wondering, and apparently the OP as well, is whether there's a slice of time when there is no prime minister at all, and what potential problems does that pose, if any? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. Normally the incumbent stays in office till the new PM comes on board.  In the case where a PM dies in office, there would be a slice of PM-free time, until the palace was advised and, presumably, the deputy leader of the party was called to be appointed either acting PM or the next PM; but that might depend on whether they're likely to win a party room ballot for the next leader, and being the current deputy leader is no guarantee of that.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   04:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Just on the general question of when one person stops being PM and someone else starts: In the case where the opposition clearly wins the election, the current PM advises the monarch to commission the Leader of the Opposition to form a government. She calls him to the palace, they "kiss hands", and he's now the PM.  The former PM's commission is withdrawn.  Same deal when the current PM loses the support of his/her own party; he advises the queen to commission whoever it is who now has majority support.  The meetings between the queen and the people concerned are held in private, so the precise moment of transition is never recorded, at least not officially afaik, but the new PM might glance at his watch at the time and make a mental note.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   03:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, if I'm hearing you right, the PM stays the PM until the monarch has handed the job over to the new one in a private session. So there is no time when there's no PM except maybe for a few seconds in the queen's office. Also, presumably both of them kiss the queen's hand rather than each other's hands, yes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * They're one-on-one meetings with the Queen. First, the current PM meets her and tells her to call the next guy.  He leaves.  Then she calls the next guy, they meet and kiss hands, and he emerges PM.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   04:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * We're assuming they actually kiss hands, since it's not recorded, right? I've got this mental picture of King George telling Winston Churchill, "Let's don't, and say we did." I'm guessing the previous PM actually remains the PM in case the new one dies suddenly on the way into the office (after the queen hollers "Next!") ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Oddly, enough, whaa on kissing hands. FiggyBee (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The old PM remains PM after leaving the Queen, until the new guy meets her, and only then does he replace the old guy. If the new guy falls under a bus on the way to the palace, the incumbent PM would, I imagine, be asked to remain in office until the party concerned could sort itself out and elect a new leader.  I have a fantastic mental picture of a party leader hopping on to a red double decker bus to go to Buck Palace to become the Prime Minister; but losing his footing while getting off, and getting run over. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   04:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It should also be noted that the Government (that is, what us Americans call "the Administration"), is distinct from Parliament. Transitions from one PM to another do not necessarily occur at elections.  In practice, the Government would need to have control of a majority of the seats in the House of Commons; if it did not it could not effectively govern since it couldn't pass any of its legislation.  In the aforementioned February 1974 election, the Conservative Party retained the government, and Edward Heath the PM position, despite not even having a plurality of seats in Parliament.  The Government couldn't do anything, hence Heath's resignation, and Wilson taking over as PM and calling new elections.  Recently, Gordon Brown assumed the office after the retirement of Tony Blair, the transition occured without any election.  In the UK, elections can be called at any time, but normally run on a 5 year cycle.  If a new PM becomes necessary between elections, there's just a handing off of the position without any election at all.  Again, this is my American perspective, so someone from the UK can feel free to correct or elaborate as needed.  -- Jayron  32  04:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems pretty good to me (another non-Brit, but I know a thing or 2 about machinery of government procedures in a Westminster system, and how things are done in the "mother of parliaments"). --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   04:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As a Brit, just a couple of points. The reference to having "control of a majority of the seats" is a slight oversimplification - there isn't necessarily a formal coalition between parties, but there would need to be agreement that the other parties would support the legislative programme that is set out at the start of each parliamentary session in the Queen's Speech - delivered by HM, but written by the PM's party ("My Government will...")  The PM would not necessarily stand down if they lost a subsequent vote, unless that vote had the status of a vote of confidence, in which case they would.  In theory HM could then call on the leader of one of the other parties to try to form a government, but in practice there would be likely to be another election.  And, in relation to elections, they can only be "called at any time" within an outside limit of 5 years.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The guidance from the Cabinet Secretary is that the incumbent can be invited to form a government is no clear alternative exists. Until such time as that invitation is made then the incumbent remains.  What that means in the event of a No Overall Control outcome continuity is maintained, in theory.
 * In practice there will be some negotiation both openly and behind the scenes to establish either a coalition or a confidence and Support agreement delivering an overall majority. Once that is established the leader of that will be invited to form a government.
 * ALR (talk) 07:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * An important point not really addressed in all of the above is that the Prime Minister was for much of its history barely constitutionally recognised and still is to some extent merely the No. 1 minister in parliament who is deputised to act as the spokesperson and goes and tells the monarch what her government is doing and thinking. This has obviously changed a lot and the PM is far more like a president than he ever was but it is still not as precise a role as the US president for instance. A close analogy to the current PM being run over by a No. 9 bus is the assassination of Spencer Perceval after which there was not a clear designated successor and it took almost a month without a PM before one was appointed. There is no real requirement for a continuity of PMs, really there just has to be one when the monarch needs to consult with parliament.  meltBanana  17:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The situation was quite different in 1812 than today, however. The monarch in 1812 still had actual executive power (rather than symbolic power) so the apparatus of state of the United Kingdom could still operate in the absence of a PM.  Since the PM has gradually come to, more and more, assume a more "Executive" role in the UK government as the Monarch's powers have gradually reduced, a month long vacancy to the office may not be tolerable, unless another official in the government would take on the role of the office without its official sanction (a sort of Acting PM).  -- Jayron  32  18:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Another issue is that it's not always clear who the successor is, when the incumbent dies or resigns. Look what happened in 1963 when Harold Macmillan resigned suddenly.  The Conservative Party at that time did not feel it necessary to descend to the tawdry practice of actually electing a leader.  Rather, one was expected to simply "emerge", statesmanlike.  (A bit like Wikipedia's protocol of gauging how a consensus has been arrived at, without ever going to a vote.)  Macmillan was gone, and his successor was not clear.  The Queen could not be seen to be engaging in politics, but she needed a Prime Minister, and she needed to know whom to commission, but the party could not yet tell her.  After considerable but hurried discussion, including with Macmillan himself, the Queen invited the Foreign Secretary, the Earl of Home to become PM.  This was a problem.  It was not an absolute constitutional requirement, but a practical requirement, that the PM be a member of the House of Commons.  Home was a member of the House of Lords.  He took advantage of the newly instituted procedure of disclaiming his peerage to be able to sit in the Commons (as Sir Alec Douglas-Home). That required him to win a seat, and fortunately there was a Scottish by-election in the offing, which he stood for and won.  Between disclaiming the peerage and winning the by-election, he remained PM but without being a member of either house.  Somewhat analagous to the case of John Gorton in Australia in 1967-68. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   21:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Lame duck PM" - I'm doubtful that newspaper reporters do attitude surveys to find out what the public is thinking. Rather, they just cook up a (more or less credible) dramatic story that sells newspapers and glues eyes to tvs. So the the public opinion story that they spout is just their own invention, put together by the luck of the draw. 89.242.97.110 (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * They do, but the surveys are frequently deliberately skewed to give them the result they want to report. For example, I'm on the Yougov panel, and there was a hilarious poll shortly after the first leaders' debate asking how much you agreed with "these criticisms of Nick Clegg", and how much "these problems caused by a hung parliament" worried you. There were no options to say "I think these are a load of bunk" or "actually, I'd quite like this to happen" or "this is extremely dodgy reasoning". It's not about the luck of the draw, it's about the media creating the story they want to report, trying to control the political system. For example, Murdoch. 86.178.225.111 (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Source of quotation: "Dance like no one's watching"
Over the last few months, I keep running into a quotation on people's Facebooks, or email signatures: "Dance like no one's watching, Love like you've never been hurt, Sing like no one's listening, Live like it's Heaven on earth". And I keep seeing it attributed to Mark Twain, of all people. That doesn't sound remotely like Twain to me, but there's stuff all over the Internet that says it's him. My primary question (which I hope is answerable) is who actually originated those lines (if it's Twain, I'd like to know when/where he said/wrote it). My secondary question (which I figure isn't answerable) is, assuming it's not a Twain line, where did the notion that it was Mark Twain get started...but I know that's a longshot. Anyone who can help source this quotation, though, will really help me out, psychologically. :-) Thanks!  71.197.145.28 (talk) 04:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's likely unfindable. I first heard it attributed to Satchel Paige of all people; I still doubt it was him.  This is a case where the noise level swamps the information level.  The internet is full of false attributions, and the false attributions are often more believable than the real ones.  Its likely the quote is to some marginally well known person, but Mark Twain, Will Rogers, Ben Franklin, Oscar Wilde, or Winston Churchill are all far more interesting, so the quote gets attached to THEM, and then the falsehood gets spread around the internet.  Then it becomes impossible to use Google to find the truth, since the more interesting falsehood becomes so pervasive, it overwhelms the search.  What I have found in these cases is look for whoever the quote is assigned to, and then eliminate ANY source that assigns it to one of the people I listed above.  Chances are, if one source gives the quote to some obscure person rather than the people above, THAT is the real source of it.  -- Jayron  32  04:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Some sources (including Wikipedia, but it's unsourced) suggest William Watson Purkey. FiggyBee (talk) 05:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The self-expressive value attached to dance dates the idea post 1975; the vulgarism "dance like" for "dance as if..." confirms the late date.--Wetman (talk) 05:08, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * According to this very unreliable source, it's William Purkey (the poster claims to have e-mailed him himself, and posted the reply). Buddy431 (talk) 05:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, since he's still alive (80-plus), the most obvious thing to do is ask him. That wouldn't prove he said it, but it could be an indicator. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This link is similar to the one Wetman posted except it has additional info indicating that Purkey excerpted it from a song by Susanna Clark and and Richard Leigh. That catch there is that the article about the song, "Come From the Heart", refers back to Purkey and others. And Purkey's answer on the blogs doesn't come right out and claim that he wrote it. So it may be one of those things that's hard to pin down. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks to everyone for their help -- I guess it's hard to have a final answer, but at least this is better than thinking Mark Twain wrote such a maudlin piece of sentiment. :-) 71.197.145.28 (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also Elliot Reed. SGGH ping! 11:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Finite afterlife
Are there any religions in which the soul is believed to have an afterlife, but this afterlife is not infinite? 129.174.184.114 (talk) 06:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See Reincarnation. — Kpalion(talk) 06:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In Hinduism, the "soul" gets reborn or "reincarnated" after death. This cycle repeat a (possibly) finite number of times before the soul reaches moksha. Gabbe (talk) 06:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What if the "afterlife" actually occurs backward in time, so that a person after death is reincarnated as another individual who was born before the original person? ~ A H  1 (TCU) 18:55, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a novel theory. Of course, it's possible when one considers that time is relative. I also have a theory that the afterlife is really just a fantasy we create and people as we choose. We die, go to a different dimension, yet our soul which is just a mass of transformed energy, creates our own personal heaven in any time period we want. A bit like solipsism.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, a novel theory, that novel possibly being Slaughterhouse-Five. Then there was a B.C. strip where Peter tells Curls he believes in reincarnation. Curls asks him to explain. Peter tells Curls that when you die, you come back as a lesser being. Curls remarks, "Looks like this is your last trip!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Jewish eschatology is a very murky and ill-defined matter, but one very general principle is that every dead Jewish person will be bodily or spiritually resurrected when the Messiah turns up. It is for this reason that traditional Judaism buries its members with their feet facing towards Jerusalem (because the amount of time it would take them to turn 180-degrees after an eternity of waiting would cause real problems...) and frowns on cremation and organ donation, since it impairs the body. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  sundries  ─╢ 15:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Cult of Padre Pio
Des anyone know why Pio of Pietrelcina is so venerated, especially in southern Italy where I live? Here people pray directly to him, have his photo on their walls and in their cars, his statue is everywhere, people go on pilgrimages to see his grave at San Giovanni Rotondo-which has become a shrine. In fact, you see more images of him than Jesus! Would this not constitute idolatry? He is said to perform many miracles-in life and in death.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * On whether it's considered idolatry to venerate saints and their icons: the Second Council of Nicaea restored the veneration of icons, and this change continues in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in particular 2129-2132. Protestants generally don't agree - see Idolatry and Christianity. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 09:53, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but in southern Italy, the worship of Pio has surpassed that of Jesus! He was allegedly visited by demons, had the stigmata, and continues to perform miracles. I believe the last Pope might have had something to do with the high level of adoration he receives.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not unconnected with the fact that as far back as 1947 (!), Padre Pio told the then Father Karol Wojtyła that he would one day "ascend to the highest post in the Church". --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   10:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah....I wasn't aware of that fact! Well, that partially explains the cult following Padre Pio (he is still called Padre rather than San) has here. Also, southern Italians are generally by nature, superstitious. Religion is Sicily is a mix of folklore, tradition and faith.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Padre Pio surpassed Jesus. I think it's just a matter of intercession. In Italy, expecially in Southern Italy, is a common practice to devote a community (in the simplest case a city) to a particular patron saint or a kind of Madonna. Naples is very strongly associated to San Gennaro, so local people tipically pray him to intercede to God for them. It's the same for Bari (San Nicola), Palermo (Santa Rosalia) and so on. This is more evident in Southern Italy probably because of their more showy way of convey their religiosity. Some other saints have a more national popularity, like San Francesco. Padre Pio is however a particular case. He's very popular in all Italy, not just in Southern Italy, but more or less everywhere. Pictures of him are found in a lot of houses or public places. He's popular both among traditional religious people and less-traditional ones (modern teenagers). I've seen even tattoos of him! I don't know the real reason for this, but it could derive from his charismatic personality, his miraculous life, his strong commitment with poor/simple/common people, media coverage... --151.51.60.165 (talk) 11:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You explain it well. Yes, southern Italians enjoy flamboyant pageantry which is evidenced in their processions. Look at Saint Agatha in Catania as another example to include with the ones you have mentioned. Yet, Pio being a Franciscan was very austere in his mien and attire, not in the least showy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:54, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the incorrupt body. Rimush (talk) 18:30, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Saint Padre Pio, had so many miracles attributed to him that, only a few years ago, there was no lack of evidence in his case for canonisation. His bi-location occurances were immence.  His saintliness is reminisant of Saint Anthony of Padua.  There is no jealously in Jesus; to honour a Saint in His Name is to Honour Him.  If you view this from outside it does look strange, but if you were ever at the process of investigation in the process of Canonisation and the investigation of miracles, you would think again.  MacOfJesus (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Padre Pio was always a controversial figure in the Church. My problem with his miracles is this: If he was/is so powerful, why can he only cure afflicted people and not prevent natural disasters which are so prevalent in Italy such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, landslides, floods? He's also strangely absent on Italian highways over any given weekend which sees a lot of fatalities, especially involving teenagers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware anyone's ever claimed he had any personal power, Jeanne. Whatever he did or was said to have done, is presumably attributed to the intercession of the divine, not to his own personal capacity to produce miracles.  He no more chose to be the vessel through which such things occurred, than I chose to be born in the Land of Oz.  If I may say so, your point is rather redolent of the centurions taunting Jesus at the cross ("He saved others, let him now save himself"), and this isn't the place for such soapboxing.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   11:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not soapboxing Jack, so please indulge me and assume a little bit of good faith on my part. I was merely saying that miracles should be wrought when they are needed and not just manifested in the guise of the stigmata, tears of blood, moving statues, etc.. I have said the same things to Catholic priests and they were not offended; rather it gave them the opportunity to flaunt their impressive knowledge of theology.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I wasn't offended (neither am I a Catholic). But an argument such as "miracles should be wrought when they are needed and not just manifested in the guise of the stigmata", etc, is rolled gold soapboxing.  It has nothing to do with the spread of knowledge via the asking and answering of questions, but everything to do with the expression of your own personal views about when miracles are and are not appropriate.  That's something you might perhaps take up with God.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   13:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be important to understand the Gospels here. The Gospels referred to the miracles as the "signs".  When Jesus cured the 10 lepers only those were, who asked, were cured. (Lk 17, 11+).


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, this is explained well in Lk 4, 16-30. Particularly verse 25-30, where Jesus explains it far better than any of us can, and got an immediate reaction, talk about soapboxing in; vs:28-30!


 * When Father Pader Pio came to the sick, in bi-location, it was Jesus who willed the miracle, and brought them about.


 * Then again it is true for Saint Catherine of Sienna, who said: "For those who do not believe no explination is possible, for those who do none is necessary!"


 * MacOfJesus (talk) 19:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Opposition to proportional representation
Another UK politics question. I've read that the most stubborn opponents of electoral reform are the Conservatives. If this is true, why? It's often been pointed out during the run-up to the election that Labour benefit greatly from the present electoral system, such that even if they were to come in third in the popular vote, they could still remain the largest party in parliament. It seems like Labour are the real beneficiaries of the status quo, so why are the Tories the ones who are most opposed to changing it? 129.174.184.114 (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, the Tories fear that proportional representation will lead to a Labour/LibDem-coalition taking over the country indefinetely. Secondly, are all politicians necessarily acting out of self-interest all the time? Isn't it at least conceivable that a political party stands for something they believe in even though it is detrimental to them as a party? Gabbe (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the official Conservative rationale is that "the current system results in stable governments and keeps out extremists". Gabbe (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither Tories nor Labour are particularly supportive of PR, because under the present system they've swapped power at regular intervals for about 90 years. PR makes it less likely that will happen.
 * Labour have recently suggested that they'd implement it, but only after it became pretty clear that they're unlikely to win the election outright.
 * The arguments are less about who is in charge, but how much power they have whilst there. PR is more likely to create smaller majorities, hence less opportunity to force through initiatives.  It should lead to more challenge and scrutiny in the house.
 * ALR (talk) 07:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The flip side of which is that it leads to less punishment for politicians for being rubbish (since all parties are always to some extent in power), and greater job security for them. 86.21.204.137 (talk) 13:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To be honest five years is pretty fair job security already. But it does depend on the system in use, some PR mechanisms do tend to disassociate the individual from the elector, some don't.  The former would, as you say, remove the scrutiny from the individual, the latter wouldn't.
 * As observed below though, successful PR needs more than just changes to the voting system. Boundary reviews and reform of the upper house would be important as well.
 * Of course increasing voter turnout would make a difference, since one of the main criticisms of the FPTP system is that in conjunction with voter apathy any governing party doesn't have a real mandate. There was talk this morning of the Tories having a majority on 37% of the vote, so about 20% of the electorate.
 * ALR (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For a ranty, but certainly conservative opposition to proportional voting, see Australian conservative columnist Janet Albrechtsen http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/proportional-vote-a-disaster/story-e6frg6zo-1225859052791 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.142.181 (talk) 10:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Some guy on TV made an interesting point, for a change, that PR means voting for the party rather than the individual MP, with the party rather than the electorate choosing who the MP is. Another concern is that nutter fringe parties like the BNP can get a toehold and a big propaganda platform. 92.29.142.124 (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * In Israel apparently, fringe parties get to dictate government policy in return for support as part of a coalition. "Because forming a coalition involves smaller parties, it often means that groups at the periphery of Israeli politics acquire disproportionate influence." Alansplodge (talk) 12:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The problem of how to bring about proportional representation without breaking the link to the constituency, and particularly without creating an entirely party-led political system, is non-trivial. Those people who suggest it is a simple, black-and-white issue show their lack of understanding of the current system. Personally, I think it will have to be accompanied by simultaneous reform of the House of Lords, to have any chance of incorporating both ideals. The filtering out of extremes is also not to be sniffed at, although people disagree on how ethical that is. You often have proponents of PR arguing that we should bring it in so that the Greens get representation, neglecting to mention that any system that gives the Greens representation has to give the BNP at least as much: in my experience, the same audiences who believe the system should represent the Greens' votes tend to believe the BNP should be banned. 86.178.225.111 (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

92.29.142.124 -- Classic proportional representation has been unable to make any headway in the United States because a very large number of voters here would consider voting for a fixed party list instead of an individual candidate to be bizarrely outlandish and completely unacceptable. There are some electoral experiments here, but with things like preference voting, and mainly confined to city councils etc. AnonMoos (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * When you say "Labour benefit greatly from the present electoral system" (and that it disadvantages the Conservatives) that's true, depending on how you define "the present electoral system". The Conservative's problem is not due to the vote-counting system, but due to the boundaries of constituencies. Currently Conservative-voting constituencies tend to contain more electors than do Labour-voting ones. This is due to the ongoing movement of the population out of urban centres into suburbs and dormitory villages, and the Boundary Commission lagging in redrawing the boundaries to match. (ref). So what's in the Conservatives' interest is an acceleration of the redrawing of the boundaries, not a change in the voting system.  A first-past-the-post voting system comparatively favours large parties, and particularly those like the Labour Party and the Conservatives in England, where their votes are sufficiently geographically contained that they win constituencies outright (and disfavours parties like the Liberals, who garner a substantial vote but one that is distributed over many constituencies). Consider for example the United Kingdom general election, 1979: the Conservatives gained 53.4% of MPs with 43.9% of votes; if a full PR scheme had pertained then, they'd have to go into coalition with the Liberals (or at least deal with them) as a Lib/Lab pact would have fielded more MPs. The boot is on the other foot where the Conservatives don't enjoy a large, geographically-coherent vote. In the 2007 Scottish Parliament election the Scottish Conservatives won 16.6% of the constituency vote, 13.9% of the region vote, and have 13% of the MSPs; I don't know their vote % in the United Kingdom general election, 2005 (I think it's about the same) but they only gained 1 seat, 3% of Scottish MPs. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 13:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

BNP but not Greens on TV in UK
Why have the BNP suddenly been on TV a lot and are even giving Party Election Broadcasts? Why arent other parties like the Greens being given an equal voice? 92.29.142.124 (talk) 12:17, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The rough calculus of representation on TV is that gaining elected representatives gains a party more access to TV. The election of two BNP MEPs in the recent European election (which brings their representation there to the same as the Green Party) explains their increased prominence. The Green Pary's Election Broadcast was shown on all five terrestrial channels last Tuesday(ref). I don't know whether it's fair to say that the BNP is given a greater voice than the BNP Greens, and such a claim would need a proper study of broadcasts. By way of example, list of Question Time episodes shows Caroline Lucas has appeared three times on the programme, Nick Griffin once. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 12:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As for Radio 4's Any Questions, we don't have such a complete archive. This list (which covers 2007-mar2009) shows Caroline Lucas present three times, and no appearances by Nick Griffin. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 12:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) ?? They have! Links to all the PEB's are on the BBC Website. Nanonic (talk) 12:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (after ec) :It has something to do with the number of candidates standing. This site [www.broadcastersliaisongroup.org.uk/docs/Criteria_May_2005_GE.doc] claims that "Broadcasts are allocated to the main parties and to parties standing in at least one sixth of seats in each nation. Parties standing in one sixth of the seats in at least one nation will be entitled to a GB-wide (or UK wide) broadcast instead of national broadcasts if they are standing a sixth (104) of the total available seats in England, Scotland and Wales." If you read further down you will find the numbers and how they were allocated for the 2005 election. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It was by this metric that the Natural Law Party gained a Party Election Broadcast in at least 1994, a copy of which is here. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 12:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Overseeing a small amount of house renovation
Here in the UK I would like to get someone who could for a house a) decide what renovation work was needed, and then b) check that the builder had done all the work required and to a good standard. What would be the job title(s) of that, so that I can search and find someone locally? Thanks 78.151.115.180 (talk) 16:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Architect or surveyor. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  16:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In the US that would be a "contractor", but I don't know if that term is used in the UK. You asked about "renovations".  Unlike "repairs", which are necessary, to me renovations means updates to add to the house or make it more stylish.  As such, that's more a matter of opinion than a factual assessment, so the homeowner really should make the final decisions. StuRat (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Here in the UK, where 100+ year old houses are commonplace, renovation can often include virtually rebuilding something uninhabitable or derelict that's been unoccupied or unaltered for the last 50 years or more, and bringing it up to modern standards. 92.29.62.241 (talk) 17:53, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm in Canada, but I'd expect the terminology here to be the same as the US. The contractor is the person who actually does the work.  If you want someone to assess what work is needed or how well it was done, that'd be a home inspector.  They are usually used when a house is being sold, to call attention to any problems that are not obvious to the buyer, but you could hire one any time you wanted.  --Anonymous, 05:09 UTC, May 2, 2010.


 * I'm thinking of the case where the contractor hires subcontractors for various pieces, like electrical work, plumbing, and carpentry, and checks on each. StuRat (talk) 11:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The relevant professional institute in this case, who can offer someone to give independent advice, would be the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, who run a service here which should be able to help. Or, more simply, you just ensure that anyone you find locally is an RICS member.  There are also similar organisations responsible for advice on architectural services (RIBA) - here - and planning services (RTPI) - here - should you need them.   Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I was thinking it could be an architectural technician maybe. 89.242.97.110 (talk) 10:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No - that is someone who prepares drawings on behalf of a professional architect. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * OR here: I specifically asked an architect to come and look at the various things I was considering having done to my house (in the UK). At the end he said "So what do you want me to do? I could draw you some plans if you wanted." I wanted what the OP wanted, and had wrongly supposed that this would be an architect. I haven't found the right thing yet. --ColinFine (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Years ago I employed an architectural technician for the same purpose, although that project didnt go through. I read on the internet in the last day or so that two professional bodies only allow them to work with architects, but there may be independent ones, as I think I went to see one a couple of years ago. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You would want a general contractor (or in the UK i think they are called "main contractors") specifically for residential work. 206.252.74.48 (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea is to get someone independant of the builder or contractor, to avoid being ripped off and get good quality work done. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is the point of a general contractor. They oversee the sub-contractors that are usually sub-contracted out to perform the required tasks. Its the responsibility of the homeowner to find a trustworthy one. Livewireo (talk) 16:55, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see the previous comment. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

To what extent does a Building Control Officer do this I wonder? I've never got involved with Building Control yet. 92.28.253.63 (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not at all. He is working for the Council and will merely ensure minimum standards (structural, fire, etc) are met. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  20:52, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

November 22, 1963
During the interval when John F. Kennedy was killed until the moment Lyndon B. Johnson was sworn in as president on board Air Force One, who had control of the government, or was the nation like a ship without its captain? I was wondering who had command of the USA's enormous nuclear arsenal in the interim.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * When Kennedy was shot (and thus "disabled") Johnson became acting president, per Article Two of the United States Constitution; this didn't need to wait for Kennedy to be formally pronounced dead. The 25th Amendment hadn't been passed yet, so you might run into arguments about what "disabled" means.  The nuclear football article says that one goes with the veep, for precisely this contingency. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, but did Johnson have full executive powers before his swearing-in? There was a great urgency to get him sworn in as Air Force One was flying back to Washington with Kennedy's casket on board. If he had the powers of president, surely it could have waited until he had flown back to Washington. I do know that both the USA and the Soviet Union went on maximum nuclear alert following the formal pronouncement of JFK's death.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the urgency was on Johnson's part. The swearing in, along with the iconic photograph thereof, with Jackie Kennedy present, was at Johnson's own request to give the appearance of continuity of government.  The reality that he had full executive power the instant the bullet hit the back of Kennedy's head was one thing, he and all of the major players in government may have fully understood that. However that does not mean that the general perception that no one was actually in authority did not exist.  That the general perception may have been false isn't relevent.  It still existed, and the hasty swearing-in ceremony was specifically orchestrated to eliminate it.  The entire ceremony and the events surrounding it are described at First inauguration of Lyndon B. Johnson.  -- Jayron  32  18:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Oath of office of the President of the United States covers the legal ground here, to some extent. Beyond that, you'd look to jurisprudence to determine what "full" means and when and to whom it applies. There is negligible applicable jurisprudence, so the legal specifics fall into the "no-one knows for sure" category. The double-swearing-in of President Obama confirms the belt-and-braces approach taken in this regard; they did the second oath not because they thought it was necessary, but because they couldn't be 100% sure it wasn't. What happens in practice in times like this is down to patriots acting in good faith and let the courts decide later. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 18:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So the minute the fatal shot entered Kennedy's skull, Johnson henceforth became The Main Man. Like You pointed out, Jayron, the American public wouldn't necassarily have been aware of this, which is why the schools all let out early that day, etc. Also, there was the general belief that a coup d'etait had occurred. Wouldn't you say the urgency on the part of LBJ was a bit tacky, especially as Jackie's suit was covered with the blood and brain matter of her husband. Oh well, finesse was never Lyndon's strong point.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * One article I read said that Jackie said at the time "Photograph me as I am at the swearing in, so they can see what they've done." I see no basis for your criticism of Johnson on this point. At that instant people in the U.S. wanted to be sure someone was ion charge of the Executive Branch and that there was a Commander in Chief of the military. Nothing whatsoever would have been gained by waiting an hour, a day, or a week for the swearing in. Edison (talk) 01:40, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it is very important, in a time of national emergency, to not only maintain order, but to maintain the appearance of maintaining order. These are not identical concepts, and tacky as it may have been, it was likely an necessary step in keeping order after the chaotic events of November 22.  -- Jayron  32  18:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I hadn't realised that just after the assassination, Secret Service agent Youngblood actually sat on Johnson! Also seeing as the plane was still in Love Field Airport when he was sworn-in, wouldn't that make Johnson the only US president ever sworn-in on Texas soil? Strange, seeing as he was a native Texan.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you weren't alive and aware of the news in 1963, it's kind of hard to explain what it was like. It was a lot like 9/11/01 in that there was a lot of uncertainty about what was going to happen next - or maybe worse, as there hadn't been an assassination of the Prez since 1901. As noted by others here, the swearing-in of LBJ was done to make the statement that the USA was still in business and operating. The high-alert was because, frankly, a lot of the citizenry immediately assumed that either Cuba or the USSR (or both) were behind the assassination. Regarding LBJ being the only Prez sworn in in Texas, probably so. When Presidents have died, usually a local judge swears in the Prez wherever he happens to be, and as soon as practical. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * For another example, Calvin Coolidge was sworn in in his father's Vermont living room, following the death of President Harding. Pretty sure Coolidge is the only president sworn in in Vermont as well.  -- Jayron  32  01:04, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I was alive when JFK was killed. I was 5 years old, but I can remember the news bulletin interrupting my favourite programme with the news from Dallas saying Kennedy had "been shot", yet a local newsman opined that it "really meant he was dead". When I told my mother, she went into a panic. Everybody did assume that Castro was behind it. I also remember seeing Ruby shoot Oswald in the stomach on live tv. My family always thought there was a conspiracy behind it. Those days when the nation stood still, I can see vividly in my mind. I was just unsure about the interval between the shooting and the swearing-in of LBJ. My brother was sent home from school after the assassination and was told to "go straight home"!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The JFK killing spawned dozens of intriguing and contradictory conspiracy theories. Even at the time, I was certain that Oswald was at least a part of it, and I've become convinced over time that Oswald very well could have done it alone. One interesting thing is that LBJ told Walter Cronkite, some time after leaving the White House, that he had never fully rid himself of the suspicion that there was foreign influence in the assassination. He wouldn't name any names, of course. It seemed so tragic, yet LBJ was able to invoke the memory of JFK to get great civil rights legislation passed. That would be his legacy if it weren't for that little fly in the ointment called Vietnam. Anyway, as with 9/11, and the attempt on Ronald Reagan in 1981, there were swift moves to present the appearance of the government running smoothly in spite of the fear and panic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * All things considered, the transistion of power to LBJ went very smoothly. He also managed to win the 1964 election. Yes, he did pass great civil rights legislation; however, at the same time, an extremely high proportion of black Americans were dying in Vietnam. That factor has to be taken into consideration when we evaluate his tenure in office.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Why in the past decades has there been violence against missionaries working in Turkey?
I've tried to locate reliable source materials to help me better understand Turkey's distrust of missionaries and was hoping you could recomend some resources. I realize the country is proudly nationalistic and protective of their culture and way of life, also aware of the historical connection between missionarly work and colonialism, but I have not be able to figure out why recently there has been such a assault against missionaries.

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.79.37.12 (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A 98-99% Muslim country wouldn't be to fond of Christian missionaries, I would think. Rimush (talk) 18:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That actually has nothing to do with it. Turkey is an enforced secular country; the government goes through great pains to stop lots of public displays of any religious nature, muslim included.  Secularism in Turkey discusses this, especially the section Constitutional principles which explains some of the rationale for the hardline stance against public religion, and Impact on society which has the relevent statement "The Turkish Constitution recognizes freedom of religion for individuals whereas the religious communities are placed under the protection of state, but the constitution explicitly states that they cannot become involved in the political process."  They take this very seriously in Turkey; the freedom of religion is an intensely individual right in Turkey; Turkish women (to some controversy) are generally forbidden from wearing religious headgear, for example.  Turkey is an interesting case, on the one hand its society is very religious; only 3% profess to having "no religion at all"; on the other hand, the state is very deliberate about maintaining Turkey as a "secular" society.  Prosyltism of any sort is likely met with problems not because Turkey is muslim, but because of the sort of enforced secularism that exists there.  -- Jayron  32  18:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm sure the violence against missionaries comes from state forces seeking to preserve the secular nature of an ultra-religious country. It all makes a lot of sense. Rimush (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, I am not sure you fully understand the nature of Turkish society here, and your flippant rejection of the above explanation isn't really necessary. Whether you wish to accept it or not, it is possible for a nation to be majority muslim and still respect freedom of religion.  There may well be individual conflicts between christians and muslims in Turkey, but the fact remains that Turkey's stance on secularism vs. religion cannot be ignored here.  It is also a problem for muslims in Turkey, for example the Headscarf controversy in Turkey was specifically a muslim-only issue... -- Jayron  32  18:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can flippantly reject anything I want, especially because I don't base my knowledge of Turkish society on official crap and Wikipedia articles based on official crap. Rimush (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then kindly enlighten us on this wonderful source of knowledge your knowledge of Turkish society is based on. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Rimush, you can rationalize your attitude any way you like, but basically you're arguing out of an Islamophobic perspective: i.e. one that equates all of Islam with radical, violent, fundamentalist Muslims. You could just as easily claim that all Christians hate abortion doctors (because a few radical, violent, fundamentalist Christians shoot abortion doctors), and that perspective would be just as prejudicial.  You could spend a year in Istanbul as a Christian missionary without running across anyone who disrespects you because you're Christian, even though 99% of the people in Istanbul are Muslim.  You seem to get your 'knowledge' of Turkish society by extrapolating from FOX news, and that is not a particularly credible perspective.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Since I don't live in the US (anymore), I don't watch FOX news. I'm not an islamophobe, I just know from experience how prejudiced majority religions can be. Sorry if I've acted like a jerk, I'm a bit irritable right now. Rimush (talk) 20:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * not to worry; it was probably just miscommunication on all sides.   -- Ludwigs 2  21:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (e/c) Turkey has (historically) had a deep divide between cosmopolitan areas (Istanbul, Ankara, and etc), which are largely westernized and have the same kind of semi-secular approach to religion that most Christians have (i.e. they are Muslims by birth and culture, attend services weekly, but live largely secular lives), and rural regions which are much more deeply Muslim. Driving from western to eastern Turkey would give you the same kind of culture-shock experience as driving from New York City to a small town in Missouri of Louisiana, and an Istanbul Turk would be just about as likely to get his a$$ whupped in eastern turkey as a Manhattan intellectual would in Mobile Alabama.  Further, over the last 15 or 20 years there has been a movement in Turkey towards the creation of an Islamic political presence.  Politics in Turkey is secular as a matter of law, similar to the separation of church and state in the US, and the rise of Islamic-leaning political parties has created a lot of political and social tension.  Christian missionaries in such a situation would be tempting targets - clearly representing the corrupting European cultural influences, reminding everyone of centuries of warfare and oppression, and lacking the kind of personal sympathy a native Turk or Muslim would receive.  Imagine an ex-patriot South African holding a public talk about the virtues of Apartheid in Watts or Harlem.  Even the people who didn't want to kill him outright would shake their heads and figure he deserved whatever he got.  -- Ludwigs 2  18:58, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then he'd still be a patriot to the old South African model. Maybe you're talking about an expatriate. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   23:49, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To focus on the element of missionary in this land...Saint Paul and Saint Barnabas were the first. Saint Paul was stoned, flogged a few times, and left for dead!  This was in his first missionary journey in Asia Minor, now Turkey.  However there is a Christian presence in the land and not a few shrines and holy Christian places.


 * Let's face it: no ones likes being preached at! MacOfJesus (talk) 01:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Then why do so many people go to church?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * To receive Jesus. A good sermon is not necessarly a good "preaching at". The film; "Pollyanna", remember?MacOfJesus (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Are court-ordered psychological evaluations privileged?
An odd question that occurred to me: When a court (in the US and - I believe - the UK systems) orders that a defendant undergo a psychological evaluation to determine if they are competent to stand trial, is the conversation between the psychologist/psychiatrist and the defendant privileged? Normally an analyst (or any doctor) cannot reveal the contents of interactions with patients except in extreme and well-defined cases (immediate and credible threats of harm to self or others, usually), but I don't know if that applies to a court-ordered diagnostic session. For instance, if a defendant were to confess to the crime during a court-ordered competency hearing, could the analyst (willingly or by insistence of the court) testify to the confession for the prosecution?

This is not a legal question - I'm not an analyst (or a criminal ). I'm just curious if anyone knows any relevant case law. -- Ludwigs 2 18:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know (which only covers the UK!) courts don't order pscychological evaluations. If a defendant is not fit to stand trial, his lawyer will summon psychiatrists to so testify (it's in his interests for their findings to be made public), and the Prosecution may summon counter-experts.
 * I'm not 110% certain though. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  ballotbox  ─╢ 18:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know UK law very well at all. in the US it probably varies state by state, but I know that the court can order an evaluation.  I'm not sure of the details, though, and either way I don't know if it answers the question.  I guess it boils down to this: when an analyst is only asked to determine the defendant's competence (whomever asked him to do so), does privilege apply?  I imagine the legal question would be something like "does the defendant have the same strong expectation of privacy in a competency review that s/he does in a normal therapeutic environment?"  -- Ludwigs 2  19:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I can only speak for the UK, and in response to, "When an analyst is only asked to determine the defendant's competence (whomever asked him to do so), does privilege apply?" I would guess the answer to be yes, with the provisio that if they were commissioned by the defendant themselves, the defendant would waive privilege because he needs the evidence to be used in court. ╟─ Treasury Tag ►  ballotbox  ─╢ 19:07, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * After Googling on this for awhile, it seems to be that in the US, court-ordered mental evaluations are generally not considered privileged. To consider them such would obviously make it impossible to order them. The point of the therapist-patient privilege, in any case, is so that in therapy sessions the patient can reveal intimate and embarrassing information for the purpose of their own therapy. The point of the court-ordered mental evaluation is not therapeutic. A patient being evaluated for competency is probably told up front that it is probably not going to be confidential. One could imagine that specific details might be confidential (though I find this unlikely), whereas the ultimate diagnosis ("the person is competent/incompetent to stand trial") would not be, though my Googling around US law discussions about this doesn't seem to draw any such line (probably because it is going to be somewhat arbitrary and would make it pretty hard to parse out the limits of cross-examination). But this is not legal advice; I get the feeling there is a very detailed, state-by-state amount of case law associated with this particular question, and it is thorny. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hunh. well, having thought it through a bit more, it occurs to me it might be a moot point.  Competence is not exculpatory  - no one will go for it unless there is already overwhelming evidence of guilt.  It just shifts sentencing from a penal confinement model to a medical confinement model.  Nothing a defendant could say in such circumstances would serve to convict him more, so the legal issue may not have ever arisen.  thanks for the responses though; very interesting.  -- Ludwigs 2  20:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Treatment or non-treatment is the deciding general rule in the United States. Fifty states may have varying rules. Details in cases are all impt. Rarely do the same facts present themselves in later cases. 75Janice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 23:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Modern missionary practices and criticisms
I've been able to locate a wealth of reliable materials about the connection between missionary work and colonization as well as abuse scandals in the 19th and 20th century but have had difficulties locating materials covering contemporary approaches to Christian misionary work. I'm looking for materials which focus on contemporary motives, practices, criticism and support of missionary practices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.141.110 (talk • contribs) 19:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You might find these links to be helpful.
 * The Nature of Mission
 * Why Are People Leaving Traditional Religions?
 * Russia—lawful or unlawful? "Results of expert studies reveal significant discrepancy on view of Christian literature"
 * Forum 18 Latest News (Forum 18)
 * -- Wavelength (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Greek austerity protests
There are currently some extremely large protests going on in Greece against the planned austerity program that is being required by the IMF and other Eurozone countries. Do the trade unions, etc., that are encouraging the protests have an alternative plan? Or do they not believe the situation is as severe as the government says? Or what? --Tango (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's just politics. They know that fiscal deficits have to decrease. But austerity hurts poorer people worse and leftist groups (unions and parties) are trying to rally up support among the working and lower-middle classes by pointing out that they (ie the workers) are going to pay for the current administration's mistakes. If anything, they may achieve less onerous requirements from the IMF and Germany. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

hindues
what do hindes believe about peace? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parts918 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * See Hinduism for a discussion about core values of Hinduism. To answer directly, from my understanding as a non-Hindu, is that there is nothing in Hinduism that is directly against all warfare, for example one of the themes of the Bhagavad Gita, an important Hindu epic, is set in the background of a war, and the main character is Arjuna, a general, who ponders the whether it is better to act in war (and thus, perhaps die and kill a great many people) or to not act, but then he subverts his duty, because as a soldier, his duty is to fight.  In this way, it kinda mirrors Hamlets "To be or not to be" speech in some ways.  The Gita is a dense text, with LOTS of themes, but one of them ends up being that a core value should be to both discover one's purpose in life, and then to act positively towards that purpose.  Since Arjuna is a soldier by purpose, it is his duty to act purposefully (see Karma Yoga), and to lead his troops into battle.  Anyhoo, I am getting a bit off course, but from the Gita, it seems clear that core Hindu beliefs do not preclude warfare, nor to they mandate peace all the time.  -- Jayron  32  21:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is your second rather broad question about various religions. It would probably be best for you to read the article about the religion that you're wondering about and then come back here with more specific questions.  That way, we don't just reiterate what the article already has to say about a particular topic.  We're more than happy to help but would appreciate a little help from you by you reading the applicable articles.  Dismas |(talk) 21:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

See also Ahimsa--70.31.57.240 (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)