Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 July 18

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

July 18

Chinese musket

An acquaintance of mine is trying to find out if this Chinese musket is authentic. It looks very similar to Ming-period muskets that I've seen. I'm hoping that someone with more expertise can find more information on it. It appears to have the characters 十百八十二香 engraved to it, but I am unsure of the significance. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 00:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Recommend asking a antique Chinese firearms dealer, for example here or here. But don't get your hopes up. In a country proud of inventing gunpowder, these might be more numerous than would support an antique market beyond museums, which probably have their pick of top condition specimens. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

File:Tepu10.jpg looks similar. If you go to commons you will find it in a 'category' with other musket categories and images. You may find one closer that may have more info. I didn't look at too many of the images.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Ivan VI of Russia's siblings

Are the four surviving siblings of Ivan VI of Russia: Catherine, Elizabeth, Peter, and Alexei considered Grand Dukes and Duchesses of Russia? Please don't cite wikipedia.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone doesn't understand the purpose of a Reference desk. Buddy431 (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you need to ask at another web page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Even Wikipedia has policies that you can't cite other wikipedia articles as fact. Don't be a smart aleck.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC) This is not an article, it's a ref desk. Wikipedia articles get "cited" all the time here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC) How silly. TENS is clearly after some extra-Wikipedia source that can answer his question. It's probably for another article he's writing or working on, and he's well within his rights to request that the answer come not from an existing WP article but somewhere else. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 04:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC) His basic premise is incorrect. Meanwhile, he's asking us to do his research for him. Go ahead and do that research if you want. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Bugs, if you don't want to help people do research, what are you doing at the RefDesk? This is kind of what we're here for. Matt Deres (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC) I thought we didn't do homework questions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC) And meanwhile, as you guys were yammering at me but not doing anything to help the OP, an IP actually does some of the OP's research for him (below). Imagine that. And now I'm waiting for the OP to yell at the IP for using another wikipedia as a source. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC) Sometimes, Bugs, ..... The first response was your suggestion the OP go elsewhere for their answer. Then you denied we do people's research for them, which would be the oddest thing anyone's ever said here. Then you characterised it as a homework question, when the fact is that The Emperor's New Spy often comes here to ask about details of Imperial Russian and other European history. That's certainly not homework; most probably getting article fodder. Then you criticise those who dared to take issue with any of your statements, but on the ridiculous and frankly, hypocritical, basis that we're not helping the OP. Please point to where you helped the OP. You did all in your power to get rid of him, with 3 (count them) completely spurious reasons for why we should not help him. But now we're all in trouble because we didn't help him. Double huh? That was only because we were too busy countering your crazy objections to helping him. Have I missed anything? By the way, nobody's been yelling or yammering, so please don't come up with further spurious charges to defend the indefensible. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 21:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC) He came to the wikipedia help desk and then insulted wikipedia. Spare me your lectures. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:13, 19 July 2012 (UTC) I had no idea I had to worship this site. When did I insult anything. I am sure that all users here understand the credibility of most wikipedia articles. If the question I like to ask can be answered by searching on wikipedia, I wouldn't even bother to ask on the reference desk.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Instead of dissing wikipedia, maybe you could help to improve it. Your bad attitude notwithstanding, Wikipedia is widely known and used. I use it myself, a lot, to find out almost anything about anything. I'm well aware that there are risks in making assumptions about the veracity of content. But the articles here generally serve as good outlines for nearly any topic you could think of, as well as being good jumping-off points to further information. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC) And in this case, they don't, which is what TENS is trying to rectify. You know, if you don't know the answer, you don't have to reply. You can just stick to the one where you can supply a Tom Lehrer lyric or whatever else passes for a response. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Bugs, it's been made very clear that The Emperor's New Spy is doing research for a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia's rules do not permit information to be sourced from existing articles. I'm sure you know that. That is why he said "Please don't cite wikipedia". You've somehow taken that as an insult (which makes no sense; why would someone come to an arm of WP for help, and diss the whole project while he's about it?), and it's snowballed (some would say "spiralled out of control") from that basic error on your part. Now that you know, not only that there was no insult, but also that TENS was acting in scrupulous adherence to the rules, you might like to withdraw your accusations against the OP and apologise for your crappy attitude towards him. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 06:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Where are you seeing all that in his original question or his snippy followup comment? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC) Quote: "Even Wikipedia has policies that you can't cite other wikipedia articles as fact". That tells us that he hasn't asked this question out of idle curiosity or boredom, or to make sense of some book he's reading, or whatever. He wants to find some detail to add to a Wikipedia article he's working on. And he can't use an existing article for that purpose, because our rules require reliable sources, and even though our articles are all (ideally) composed from reliable sources, they are not in in themselves reliable sources for other articles. I agree that "Don't be a smart aleck" was unnecessary, but surely that was a reaction to your "Maybe you need to ask at another web page". I can see how his mind would have been working: "What sort of answer is that to give to a reasonable question? What the hell is the Ref Desk there for, if not to provide answers to questions like mine?" But clearly your response was in turn conditioned by the insult you read into "Please don't cite wikipedia". But just as clearly, there was no insult intended and the OP's request was polite and perfectly reasonable. He surely did not need to go into chapter and verse (as I've just done above) to explain to experienced redfdeskers why it was important to have some information provided from outside Wikipedia, so the OP is blameless on that score as well. So, the whole thing proceeded from a knee-jerk reaction that came from a misintepretation on your part, which at its base demonstrated a lack of assumption of good faith towards the OP. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 12:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Also while they were in imprison, were they raised in the Orthodox or Protestant faith? They were allowed servants and priests. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Emperor's New Spy, re your original question, I think I've found the source you need to find, and can suggest some people to ask.

• The source is referenced in Russian Wikipedia. Великий князь quotes The complete collection of the laws of the Russian Empire, Vol XXIV, 1830, Doc. № 17906; v.6 , St. Petersburg., 1888 for as specifying actual official rules for who gets to be called Grand Duke or Duchess. I can't find this book online in English, but at least it's a title you could take to a library or the Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request.
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request is also a good place to ask for help from people who can access newspaper databases – they could look for a contemporary reference.
• Googling Professor Imperial Russia brought up a few experts; you could try emailing them. [1], [2], [3].

(The rule according to Russian Wikipedia is "sons, daughters, brothers, sisters and male-line grandchildren of the Emperor". This would mean a yes for them while Ivan was Tsar (as his brothers and sisters) but a no before he was Tsar (only female-line great-grandchildren) and who knows what after he was deposed, which is why an expert might be the way to go.)

Hope these leads help or you get a better answer soon.184.147.119.111 (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's a review of a book called "The Five Empresses" by Evgenii Anisimov, which promises that the book devotes a chapter to the detention of Anna Leopoldovna and her children. That might be the source you are looking for. 184.147.130.16 (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:29, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Five Empresses is partially available on Google, but I can't see the beginning of that chapter ("The Secret Prisoner and Her Children"). Certainly it confirms that the servants were all Danish, but the parts I can see don't mention the priest. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Does the Franklin Delano Roosevelt biographical article need a civil rights segment in the Presidency section?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

References desks are not pages to discuss weight and reliable source policy.

---

The current version of the Franklin D. Roosevelt article does not have a civil rights section. I believe one is needed during his Presidency. Civil rights and the New Deal can be discussed, or how President Roosevelt was able to gain the support of African Americans without passing a Civil Rights bill. I believe the subject on the internment of Japanese could be discussed since George H. W. Bush apologized and awarded Internment survivors money. In the current article one would believe that there were no blacks in America nor that lynching was an issue during FDR's lengthy tenure in office. Please feel free to make comments for discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to raise this matter at Talk:Franklin D. Roosevelt. I'm sure some people who frequent the Ref Desk would be interested in partaking in such a discussion, but the article's talk page is where it should be held, not here. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 02:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have already raised the topic of discussion in the talk page. I am looking for a concensus of opinion from multiple editors and I believe that the reference desk is a good place for discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This may be the place to ask people to come participate in the discussion, but the actual discussion itself should definately take place at the article talk page. Any discussions designed to have a direct impact on article content should ideally occur at the article talk page itself, to keep everything together. --Jayron32 02:45, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. I think you should follow normal en:wp procedure. That is: edit the article, have it reverted, edit war until all involved are blocked, and then seek consensus after all the blocks expire.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have already started a discussion on the talk page, as I mentioned before. Seems I am getting the run around at the reference desk without any attempt to get any answers. Hopefully more editors will discuss at the talk page. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my flippant response. I would just be bold and add it. If it is reverted then follow procedure.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted Canoe1967. Thanks. Here is the link to the FDR talk page on Civil Rights: Franklin D. Roosevelt Talk Page Civil Rights Discussion. Cmguy777 (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This is not the right place to ask for input. If the talk page is not sufficient, then the next place to go is the most relevant WikiProject. This article belongs to about two dozen WikiProjects; probably the best place to post a request for input is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Presidents. Looie496 (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Or, since that WikiProject is not very active, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States. Looie496 (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Franklin relied on Southern Democrats to vote for him and for Congressmen who would support his programs. Eleanor was, perhaps, more progressive with respect to civil rights. His administration "did what they could" within the political realities of the 1930's and early 1940's, with Hitler's racist genocidal fascism stalking Europe and blatant racism a powerful force in the US, while plutocrats allegedly sought an armed coup in the US. The 1930's and early 1940's were (one wishes) different from modern times. Edison (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Edison, thanks (not) for undermining all the previous editors who said here is not the appropriate place for such a discussion. This question is not seeking some information about the civil rights aspects of FDR's presidency; it's about whether or not the Wikipedia article Franklin D. Roosevelt should include material about the civil rights aspects of FDR's presidency. That is a matter that can only be settled by consensus between the participants on the talk page of that article. Not here. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 04:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Confessions to priests and Mandatory Reporting

Here in Australia, like no doubt many other countries, there is a (well-deserved) commotion about sexual abuse by members of the clergy, particularly the catholic church.

A "side question" (IMHO a red herring) has been: Should mandatory reporting obligations extend to what priests hear in the confessional booth?

My questions are:

1. Can anyone point to any cases where a catholic sexual abuse scandal actually involved the confessional booth in any form?

(My understanding is that the overwhelming majority of cases involve the church hierarchy "covering up" for other employees or clergy of the church, not confessing parishioners. I've never heard of the confessional booth coming into play in any of the actual cases which I've read about).

2. Hope this question isn't too speculative: How often, if ever, do priests actually hear confessions of serious criminal activity? (I would think it extremely rare, but I stand to be corrected).

3. Could priests be granted the same leeway as lawyers (regarding what they hear in the confessional booth) without jeopardising the protection of children? 119.225.16.46 (talk) 07:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, in most jurisdictions, even lawyers aren't allowed to cover up an ongoing crime. StuRat (talk) 07:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

True, but they must keep quiet about confessions to past ones. 119.225.16.46 (talk) 07:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In my understanding, "covering up" means taking some active role in preventing information from coming to light. It doesn't mean just keeping quiet. I am not a lawyer and don't know whether lawyers would be allowed to keep quiet in such a case; I'm just talking about how I use and understand language. --Trovatore (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

For Q.2, how would anyone ever know what they hear, unless it's some beans that have been spilled by a disaffected priest based on his own experiences and what his fellow priests have told him? Even so, that would be only one person's testimony and would not necessarily reflect the generality of what is divulged in confessionals world wide. Also, given that he was sworn to secrecy even from the arms of the law, how could anyone ever trust that what he said was the truth? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 07:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It always amazed me that RC priests in Northern Ireland could hear confessions of sectarian violence and murder and stay silent. I believe that is what kept the Troubles going for all those years. So I'd be interested in information related to this too. --TammyMoet (talk) 08:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

We have a (probably somewhat misnamed) article on the priest–penitent privilege that, with differences among them, exists in several countries. Australia is not mentioned by name. --Trovatore (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Tammy, are you really saying that you believe that Catholic priests not breaking their oathes to turn in those Catholic contributors to The Troubles who cared enough (and understood what they were doing to be wrong) that they actually Confessed their sins, is "what kept The Troubles going for all these years"? As if only devout Catholics were involved in The Troubles, rather than all sorts of Catholics and Protestants? As if anyone would Confess such crimes to a priest who wouldn't keep their oath? Really now. 86.161.208.94 (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I could never understand why the Pope could not issue an edict which said "if you commit these crimes you're going straight to hell, regardless of any confession/absolution". What priest could absolve someone of killing people in a car bomb? Surely those who held the information of which people had perpetrated those crimes had a moral obligation to turn those people in? Isn't that why people were allowed to remain at large for years, and are still at large today, because the only people who knew who had committed what crime were forbidden to bring them to justice? (I speak here as someone who lost friends in a pub bombing.) And doesn't that also apply to victims of child abuse by priests? --TammyMoet (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's strong doctrinal reasons why no Pope would ever issue an edict exactly as you suggest. Despite Jesus' commission to Peter and the others that they had the power to retain as well as forgive sins, the church has generally maintained the line that anyone can be forgiven and redeemed if they are truly penitent. Confession is one of the main ways in the Roman Catholic church that this grace is imparted sacramentally. However, I have never known why an edict could not go out saying "If anyone confesses to {list of unspeakable crimes}, you must impose as penance the requirement that they give themselves up. If they do not do so, not only should you not grant absolution, you are exempted from the seal of the confessional, and should report the crime to the secular authorities. If, as a priest, you yourself commit or abet any such act, you will be defrocked and barred from holding office. If, as a bishop, you fail to enforce or implement these rules, or conceal, aid, abet, or commit any of these offences, you will additionally be excommunicated." AlexTiefling (talk) 12:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A priest doesn't have any power to absolve you anyway, if you believe in that sort of thing. He can help you figure out how to ultimately be absolved by God, but confession isn't a magic wand that frees you from whatever crime you committed. Certainly people treat it that way...selling indulgences (which were supposed to absolve you of sin) was one of the causes of the Reformation, for example. But nevertheless that is definitely not how confession is supposed to work. In any case the Catholic and Protestant clergies themselves contributed to the Troubles. No one is shocked that they abuse children, but it's unthinkable that they would support sectarian violence? Adam Bishop (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course. Where I said "grant absolution" I technically meant "pronounce absolution". The priest will generally say "may Almighty God forgive you..." - expressing hope that the penitent is forgiven, rather than guaranteeing it. My point is that if the confessing person was genuinely penitent, they'd seek to make restitution, which should involve giving themselves up. If they refuse to do so, the priest can have no confidence that they have repented, and should not pronounce absolution.

And I think people are still shocked at both abuse and collusion in terrorism; but we're much less surprised by abuse than we used to be, because it's clearly been so widespread.AlexTiefling (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Alex, in addition to prescribing whatever penance might be appropriate, priests have always been under the obligation to influence penitents to submit to the civil authorities for anything they confess they've done that is a breach of the civil law. That applies from minor traffic infringements they got away with, all the way to murder/rape/child abuse. They can't physically apprehend them and take them to the nearest police station because, if for no other reason, that would be breaking the seal of the confessional. But they can go as far as contacting them - very discreetly, obviously - outside the confessional (assuming they know their identity) and discussing the matter, with a view to the penitent giving themselves up. I have to assume that most priests who commit child abuse never confess it to another priest in the confessional, because if they did, the confessor would be obliged to do all in their power to persuade the first priest to surrender themself to the police. And we all know how often that happens. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 13:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No, Tammy, that isn't why. There has been a deliberate policy of amnesty for both sides, despite the terrible acts carried out by both sides, because the authorities seem to consider that the best way to achieve peace. Again, demolishing a basic Sacrament of the Catholic Church for the sake of this one conflict would only catch those who a) were Catholic b) were sufficiently devout and repentant to have Confessed these crimes as a sin c) had enough actual evidence to convict them. It would increase sectarian tensions (picking on one side), would effectively destroy a Sacrament (the priest isn't even really supposed to think about or particularly remember what was Confessed, as the point is that the priest is a temporary stand in for Christ), would only be possible once, ever, as people would simply stop Confessing crimes (thus removing an opportunity for them to talk about what they did with someone, and be prompted to rectify the situation), and would catch very few of the actual perpetrators. As to why the Pope doesn't declare "do this and you will definitely go to Hell, no matter what": because neither the Pope nor the Church believes they have that power. You're viewing this as if the Pope and the Catholic Church didn't actually believe their own theology. 86.161.208.94 (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

IP, your final two sentences express my point far more effectively than I expressed it myself. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

"if you commit these crimes you're going straight to hell": I see two serious problems here. The first is simple: from a theological point of view, the pope does not determine the creed. The pope cannot simply send people to hell. Also, I think the Catholic Church abolished most of traditional hell with the Second Vatican Council. Secondly, given the degree of indifference shown by god at the execution of Giordano Bruno, or at the 1099 massacre in Jerusalem (with the perpetrators shouting "Deus vult"), or even in Treblinka ("Gott mit uns") or at the ("In God We Trust") My Lai Massacre, I doubt she would suddenly change her mind and state that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" means "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and does not come with the footnote "Unless killing approved by your social, religious or political group, other restriction may apply, patent pending, not valid in the District of Columbia and K-Mart". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion brings up an interesting question. Who, according to the Pope & the Church & their theology, definitely went to Hell? Aside from this fellow. Wonder if he said "Nice place to visit, but wouldn't want to live there" then? Aside from the unnamed plutocrat resident told of here, even our article on another leading candidate says "The damnation of Judas is not a universal conclusion, and some have argued that there is no indication that Judas was condemned with eternal punishment".John Z (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

No one definitely goes to hell, since everyone can be redeemed (perhaps after death). Adam Bishop (talk) 05:51, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Wasn't asking who stayed there, but who (human) ever went there. Definitely Jesus, probably Judas, and definitely the Rich Man (who looks like a quite permanent resident). Who else?John Z (talk) 10:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Well in that case, I should point out that "the Rich Man" is a character in a parable, and not intended to be a real person. If you just want to know who went to Hell (where Hell is given the Catholic definition of "separation from God") then everyone who died before Jesus opened Heaven went to Hell. They didn't all go to the metaphysical pit of fire, but they did go to Hell. Consider Lazarus in the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man: both characters are in Hell, as Heaven hadn't been opened yet, but Lazarus is in Abraham's Bosom also known as the Limbo of the Fathers whereas the Rich Man is in the pit of fire. When Jesus died and "descended into Hell", he is supposed to have "preached to the souls in prison" allowing those in the Limbo of the Fathers (the non-punishment bit of Hell) to be saved and enter Heaven when he opened it.

So, from a Catholic point of view, we can know that all those people went to Hell, but we don't know that anyone was punished and we don't know that anyone was damned. 86.161.208.94 (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Q1's parenthetical comment "...the overwhelming majority of cases involve the church hierarchy 'covering up' for other employees or clergy of the church, not confessing parishioners ...". Even priest themselves are required to confess their sins (apparently even the Pope goes to confession), so it may be that the bishop (or another priest) hears about the abuse because the abusing priest tells him in confession. The bishop is then obliged (by the Seal of the Confessional) to keep it secret. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

See my reply to Alex Tiefling above, which is directly relevant to this. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

@TammyMoet above, absolution and the seal of the confessional are separate issues. Even if the priest withholds absolution, he is still obliged not to reveal anything that has been said to him in confession, the obvious issue being that he can't jeopardize people's trust in him, given that, according to his beliefs, saving immortal souls is more important than sending people to prison, even for murder. Of course the priest can make confession to law authorities a condition of absolution--but that is a separate matter. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If priests are forced to pass on to police all evidence of possible crimes confessed to them, people will stop telling the priests. HiLo48 (talk) 19:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Medeis, can you give us a cite for "Of course the priest can make confession to law authorities a condition of absolution". I've never heard of conditional absolution. Even the ordinary types of penance handed out ("say 10 Hail Marys and 12 Lord's Prayers") is not a condition of absolution, afaik. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

See I Confess (film) which discusses the Catholic expectation that a Priest would suffer martyrdom rather than violate the sanctity of the confessional. Yeah, as a Protestant, I expect that a Priest would let the person who confessed frame him for a murder, and say nothing, going to the place of execution with the sure and certain hope of salvation. I also expect that of a protestant clergyman who receives confession as a part of his ministry, in religions where confession is a sacrament. If the person confessing says "I did this horrible thing this morning and I am penitent,etc.," the Priest should not be expected to call the cops, though he should urge the person to go to the police. If he says "And I plan to do it again again tonight," then he is not penitent, and I would not have so great an expectation of silence in the anticipation of harm to someone. If he says he will not do it again, then every morning he marches in and says, well, I did it again, but I am penitent, etc, then I'm not sure. Maybe then the Priest/clergyman can discount the person's claim of being penitent and not accept it as a valid confession. [Here] is a thoughtful 1986 article on this problem. Google News says that in Ireland the government claims that protecting children trumps the sanctity of the confessional. I am reminded of a skit on Monty Python or some such wherein someone enters the confessional booth, and shortly thereafter, the Priest leaves his booth, opens the booth of the parishioner, hauls him out, and starts punching him. Edison (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@JackofOz, First, I don't understand the meaning of your "exactly", above, since HiLo48 is simply repeating more elegantly what I said; the priest must maintain the confidence of his confessants. Second, you seem to be confusing penance with contrition, and or the conditions of absolution. Contrition is the proof that you are sorry for your act, and the priest may require conditions to show the reality of that contrition, such as requiring confession to law authorities of a criminal act. That is separate from penance, which is just plain punishment. I suggest you read the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Absolution can be given either absolutely or conditionally, i.e., depending on the fulfillment of some condition for its validity. It is also given ad cautelam (for safety's sake) in all rescripts, Bulls, and Apostolic privileges, lest the effects of the concession be impeded by some hidden censure. Lastly, we have absolution ad reincidentiam; this takes effect immediately, but if the penitent, within a certain time, does not do something prescribed, he at once occurs, ipso facto, a censure of the same kind as that from which he had just been absolved."

and especially the article on Absolution, which talk of conditional absolution. μηδείς (talk) 03:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your "suggestion", and for the information. It was "exactly" what I asked for. My earlier "exactly" was to fully support the concise formulation chosen by the previous editor. There was no reflection on any other editors. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 06:20, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(EC) The problem is that everything seems to agree making surrender to authorities a condition of absolution simply isn't allowed by current Catholic interpretation. E.g. our own article, Sacrament of Penance (Catholic Church) as well as [4] http://catholicforum.fisheaters. com/index.php?topic=3429341.25 [5] [6] [7] [8].

One of the sources mention canon law for which 'A confessor is prohibited completely from using knowledge acquired from confession to the detriment of the penitent even when any danger of revelation is excluded' is perhaps revealing. From my reading of the sources, you are mistaken about the conditions imposed being distinct from the confessional seal. Several of the sources noted they seal is regarded as absolute and requiring someone to surrender would effectively be trying to break the seal. (Although one person in this source [9] disagrees.)

Perhaps more importantly, from my reading of the source you linked above (which I came across when researching the answer) as well as [10] [11] [12], I believe you're also misunderstanding the conditional thing. A priest can't impose a future condition on absolute, that's invalid. Rather conditional absolution is granted when the priest isn't sure the confessor actually fulfills the requirements for absolution so tells the pertinent they are only conditionally absolved. From the last source in particular, I believe the priest may suggest the pertinent should wait until something has happened before they believe they are absolved, not because they are imposing a future condition but because since they may not be absolved, they shouldn't sin further for example by receiving the eucharist when they haven't been absolved for a mortal sin. One tricky thing is some sources including I think [13] http://www.fisheaters .com/unction.html and one of the sources I linked above seem to be confusing indirect absolution and conditional absolution. As I understand it, indirect absolution is when the person doesn't actually confess their sins in the sacrement but the priest says they are absolved if they fulfill the conditions required for absolution, conditional absolution is when the sinner does take part in the sacrement but the priest isn't convinced they fulfill the requirements (dispositions?) for absolution.

The priest can also ask the sinner to perform penance and as noted in some of the earlier sources failing to fulfill these requirements would potentially be a sin in itself but as also noted in those sources, the sinner can ask the priest if they think or find they can't fulfill what was asked from them or even I think based on their own judgement substitute their own penances. For the same reasons as earlier, giving a penance of surrending to the authorities would seem to be not allowed.

The only loophole (as it were) is potentially what's mentioned here [14], a person generally can't allow an innocent to continue to suffer for their actions. The example given there is if an innocent party has been charged or perhaps even serving. I guess there may be debates as to whether the original sin is absolved (does commiting this new sin related to the old sin mean you're not genuinely contrite?), but the ongoing sin of allowing the party to suffer obviously can't be. This isn't of course a conditional absolution but non-absolution (b in the CE source you linked). (Of course a priest could similarly not grant an absolution if a person hasn't surrendered but my reading is they can't do this for non-continuing sins because it isn't a perceived requirement and it would have the effect of trying to break the seal. One of the sources mentions something new to deal with sexually abusive, but I don't know what it is.)

Potentially you could stretch this to suggest if a victim is suffering because of your actions in not surrending, then you are sinning. It likely gets tricky if you don't know if anyone is suffering, but obviously e.g. if you're a murderer and in the paper the family said just yesterday they're having trouble moving on because they don't know who killed their whoever, this doesn't apply. (Although you probably don't have to surrender straight away, rather going to the family and telling them what you did and offering to surrend if that's what they want would probably be sufficient.) Similarly if there's a court case, even if you don't intend to testify (and therefore have to lie) it would seem problematic that the victim may be thought of as a liar or for that matter has to go thru the trauma of the case. (Or for that matter if there hasn't been a court case, but someone came out and publicly accused you but a decision was made not to prosecute due to insufficient evidence.) Perhaps this was what was applied here [15] (in that the person confessing was perceiving to be disadvanting others via their cheating), or perhaps the priest there just wasn't that familiar with or didn't care about Canon law.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:15, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the ronconte wordpress source mentions how one of the issues from the CC's POV for submission to civil authorities is the punisment might be out of proportion to the crime. (Where the person there said 'Under the eternal moral law all three fonts of morality must be good for any act to be moral. If submitting will have grave bad consequences that are not outweighed by good consequences, such as harm to a man’s wife and children, and harm to him if civil authorities in the nation are known to give excessive penalities for whatever the crime was, then submitting would not be moral.') While this may just one theologian's opinion, it doesn't exactly seem surprising. In particular, given the CC's views on the death penalty, it seems doubtful to me JackofOz's claim would be true (they are always encouraged to submit to civil authorities) in a country like Malaysia or Singapore with the mandatory death penalty for drug trafficking or manufacturing if the person confesses 20 years after the fact when they are now a family main with young children well known in the community for their efforts fighting drugs, charity work, etc. I wonder whether they would even do it in the US for murder if there's a strong risk of the death penalty. (They may encourage other things like making sure any family or whatever.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

occupations per 10000 workers

Assuming a work force of 10,000 individuals in a community: What is the (job title,employment break down) ie.... # of police officers per 10,000 or 1 police officer per (23?) people

      # of doctors per 10,000 or 1 doctor per (600?) people.
      # of store clerks per 10,000 or 1 store clerk per (?) people 
      # of store stockers per 10,000 or 1 stocker per (?) people
    etc. 
total break down numbers should be within 10% of 10,000

thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.232.93 (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Which community are you talking about? How can we possibly tell you how many police officers there are without knowing where it is? Or do you want to know how many would be needed, which is something that can't be answered precisely, especially without knowing the sort of place or what law enforcement policies you wish to pursue. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like homework. Ochson (talk) 14:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A site like http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_phy_per_1000_peo-physicians-per-1-000-people may have some of these statistics. It has a section on physicians per 1000 people for a variety of countries...you can calculate up what that would be per 10,000 pretty easily from there. ny156uk (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm looking for general averages. I used police and doctors as examples because I know the rough averages for those professions. Military is roughly 350 service personel per 10,000 or 1 per 28 (though in some countries the military and police overlap). For the past several years I've been looking for the employment stats on western industral communities simply because thats what we live in, and thats what would be most avaliable. What I Would like to -eventually- determine is the breakdown on a bronze/ironage citystate that may have existed between the Black Sea and western Himalayas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.232.93 (talk) 14:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: per http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_phy_per_1000_peo-physicians-per-1-000-people world wide average is 1.7 doctors per 1000 people (or 1 per 588.235) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.232.93 (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Averages like that aren't much use. Take a look at List of countries by number of military and paramilitary personnel. There is so much variation there than trying to summarise it as one number isn't useful. It definitely isn't useful for working out what a bronze-age or iron-age settlement would have been like (they would have been 99% farmers, I would expect). --Tango (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Doctor, lawyer, beggar-man, thief. I know the stats have been worked out for a (worldwide) average "village" of 1000. It was quoted in the Denver Post or Rocky Mountain News about 10-15 years ago. I'd be happy to find Word Wide occupation numbers for per 100,000. Farmers for a Bronze Age city-state would be closer to 10%. The devolvement of agriculture allowed us to go from 9 people working to feed 10, to 1 person working to feed 10. It allowed for others to specialize in pottery, tanning, woodwork etc. It’s the etc I want to know about. I find general averages to be very usefull. I find it difficult to extrapolate without them.

Shia Sunni Monarchy

Are Shia Muslim anti-monarch and Sunni Muslims pro-monarch or is it a misconception? Shias in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia are against the Monarch and that's why I wanted to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.105.163 (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on this by any means, but I think it has more to do with the ruling family in Saudi Arabia being of a different Muslim sect, rather than any anti-monarchist sentiment in Shia Islam. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Shahs of Iran were Shia. See Mohammad Reza Pahlavi which list his religion as Shia. Spot checking a few other random Shahs from List of kings of Persia confirms that the Shahs of Iran were Shia. --Jayron32 16:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

We have List of Shi'a Muslim dynasties. Those in early Islam opposed to a hereditary caliphate were the Kharijites... -- AnonMoos (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that Shia Muslims are against Sunni monarchs that discriminate against them and vice versa. Keep in mind that most Sunnis in Syria and abroad support the overthrow of Assad, who is not a monarch but whose dictatorship essentially functions like a monarchy. Assad is a Shiite (to be more specific Alawite, which is a branch of Shiism). Futurist110 (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Were any of the policies of Franklin Delano Roosevelt undemocratic?

I am asking this question as objectively as possible without any judgement. The main issue was the internment of 100,000 Japanese citizens during Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Presidency, although Italians and Germans were interned as well. Was Roosevelt ultimately a racist or did he hold racist views against Asians? His New Deal policies initially favored whites over black citizens. Please remember this is a discussion and not meant in anyway to condone or condemn any of FDR's actions while President. What do the sources say? Cmguy777 (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

He issued lots of public statements in favor of China, and his administration issued the Overrun Countries series of postage stamps honoring Korea (along with presumably plenty of other statements, although I've never looked for any), so I expect that the sources would credit his actions to the state of warfare against Japan. German and Italian immigrants had long been more thoroughly integrated into American culture than had Japanese immigrants, so the comparison probably isn't valid. Nyttend (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Defining someone as a "racist" is an inflamatory thing, as it is a loaded word which is not to be thrown around lightly. Using a term like that doesn't generally lead to a dispassionate discussion of the historical facts in question, instead it causes people to discuss the issue emotionally. One can look at the effects of the policies of Roosevelt on race relations within the United States, one can look at the personal statements or actions of Roosevelt regarding his relationship with people of other races, but to ask, point blank "Was he or wasn't he a racist?" is a completely unanswerable question. I suggest you reformulate your question if you want a serious discussion; leaving it as you have asked it won't be very helpful. --Jayron32 16:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I changed the question to policies rather then FDR. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I found a good source: By Order of the President: FDR and the Internment of Japanese Americans by Greg Robinson (2001). Cmguy777 (talk) 18:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this question an attempt to re-open the closed discussion above? Shouldn't this all be on the Talk page? AlexTiefling (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert: This is not the same discussion as above that had to do with placement of the Civil Rights section in the FDR article. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this about FDR being undemocratic (the title) or being racist (the text)? HiLo48 (talk) 19:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Insert: I used "undemocratic" to keep the question neutral. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There are many wartime policies of the FDR administration that were undemocratic. The U.S. Government at the time basically nationalized the entire U.S. industry to make it work towards supporting the war effort. That's undemocratic. The administration suspended many constitutional and individual rights during the war, and the internment program of American citizens was just a part of that. The War Powers Acts of 1941 and 1942 made FDR functionally a dictator, if a benevolent one. It was a decidedly undemocratic way to run the country. Which is not to say that aspects of it were not justified (the mobilization of American industry to make war materiel would likely have not been as efficient without it, for example), but certain other aspects were less than honorable (the aformention internement of American citizens based on accident of ancestry). --Jayron32 20:31, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I thought the question was about the internment of Japanese, Italian and German citizens. No mention of American citizens. Interning the former, when the US was at war with those countries, would hardly be a surprise to anyone. You either intern or expel citizens of nations you're at war with. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 21:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Read the article titled Japanese American internment and the last line of the opening paragraph. I won't ruin the surprise for you. It will be a learning experience. --Jayron32 23:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, applying that to the precise phrasing of the question & Jack's response here involves a distinction not treated much in that article & paragraph - concerning the Japanese-Americans who were citizens of both Japan and the USA. How many of the US citizens interned were also citizens of Japan? Currently, Japan tends to discourage dual citizenship. Multiple_citizenship#Multiple_citizenship_prohibited.2Fdiscouraged [16]. Back then - ? The line "The manifesto was backed by the Native Sons and Daughters of the Golden West and the California Department of the American Legion, which in January demanded that all Japanese with dual citizenship be placed in concentration camps" indicates that this was a significant group though - maybe the Nisei had dual citizenship (i.e. also Japanese) at the time?John Z (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I'm fully aware that a goodly chunk of the internees were American citizens. But the OP was not asking about them. He was asking about "the internment of 100,000 Japanese citizens ... although Italians and Germans were interned as well". He's referring to citizens of other countries, in particular, countries with which the USA was at war. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 00:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

He's asked several questions. I answered the one in the title. Imprisoning American citizens without due process was undemocratic. --Jayron32 01:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Was there a need for the Japanese internment? Roosevelt went against advise that there was no need to intern the Japanese. Even J. Edgar Hoover did not believe there was a need to inter the Japanese. According to Robinson, western farmers wanted to confiscate Japanese agriculture property. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Naturalization Act of 1790 prohibited non whites from becoming citizens. The Naturalization Act of 1870 allowed African descent to become citizens. How could Asians be citizens of the United States prior to World War II? Cmguy777 (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Not correct. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (1868) specifically states "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." A person born in the U.S. was a U.S. citizen, regardless of race. This was already established law, as 2 years earlier the Civil Rights Act of 1866 already contained essentially the same text. This was not a specific enumeration of any one race, it was open to all ancestries. A person born in the United States of Japanese parents was an American citizen no different from any other American citizen, and this was constitutionally true since at the latest 1866-1868, and possibly earlier. Every time there was a legal test to this clause, it was generally upheld in as broad a definition as possible (excepting Native Americans who lived on reservations and retained citizenship of their tribes). United States v. Wong Kim Ark is relevent here. Even if we take the late date of United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) as when the matter became settled law, that's still some 40+ years before WWII. --Jayron32 23:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I will just say that defining this policy as "undemocratic" is very confusing to me. "Democratic" has a relatively distinct meaning that has to do with how people are elected and policies are created. FDR was just as "undemocratic" with respect to internment as many previous Presidents and many since. It was arguably a Constitutional violation (though the Supreme Court did not ruled it as such, disturbingly), it was arguably an awful policy, but it does not have any unique distinction as "undemocratic." More "undemocratic" were his actions in, say, creating the atomic bomb, which were done using black budgets, shielded from Congress, and more or less kept entirely out of the checks and balances that are required by the "democratic" requirements of the Constitution. Arguably the President can do this sort of thing under the requirements of executive power in wartime, though, so even then, it's not clear, but I'd argue that's much more "undemocratic." Democracy is not the same thing as equal rights, as centuries of American history have shown. You can have extremely racist and oppressive democracies if sufficient checks to the rule of the majority — or to executive power — are not put in place. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Democracy doesn't mean that people have a vote for their leaders or anything like that. It means that the people in a society have access to political power and the right to give or withhold their consent from the actions of their government. Civil rights are an inherent and inseperable corollary to democracy. In that way, democracy isn't a binary condition, but a continuum based on how much personal freedom and access to the machinery of the state that people have. FDR passed policies which restricted the freedoms of U.S. citizens in a direct way. That is fundementally undemocratic. It didn't make the U.S. 100% undemocratic, but it did make it less democratic at the time. --Jayron32 01:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a nice idea, but that's not the definition of democracy. It doesn't mean "all people" — it means "some subset of the people," even today. What you are describing is better termed liberal democracy, which is the definition of democracy plus a lot of other positive things that the standard definition can easily leave out. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The OP needs to keep in mind that there was a significant amount of wartime hysteria going on. For one thing, there were Japanese raids going on in the Pacific Northwest (a fact not widely publicized at the time), so the fears were not groundless. Locking up anyone who might conceivably have some connection with the enemy was the "carpet bombing" approach to the problem. There were indeed some Japanese-Americans who were considered subversives, but most of them were good Americans who got screwed, losing property as well as rights, for no legally justifiable reason. Just not killed, as the Germans did with theirs - but "only" confined to the internment camps. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron that Democracy requires equality and clearly the Japanese did not have any equality or protection during WWII in America. If the Japanese were considered American's by birth, what Constitutional authority did Roosevelt have in making his internment prison camps? Cmguy777 (talk) 05:56, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

See Korematsu v. United States. Basically the Supreme Court ruled that in his role as Commander in Chief, the President can make wide-ranging policies during wartime for the protection of the homeland, including rounding up people based solely on their national heritage. Note that this was not the first time a President had done things of this nature during wartime — Lincoln and Wilson also did similarly wide-spread things in the name of national security. One of the many stains on the idea that the Constitution is adequate to protects individuals in times of strife. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln did not round up blacks and put them in prison, he set them free in the Emancipation Proclamation. Lincoln and Wilson rounded up people because of their political sympathies. The Japanese were interred simply because they were Japanese. Thanks for the input on the Supreme Court case, Mr. 98. Cmguy777 (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The Japanese were interred simply because they were Japanese. - That would make a lot of sense for the Japanese citizens you asked about, but a lot less sense for the Americans of Japanese descent. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 11:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

What Supreme Court ruling stated that children of foriegn nationals born in the U.S. or U.S. territories were U.S citizens? Cmguy777 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

For children born in the U.S. proper, see United States v. Wong Kim Ark. But that was just interpreting what was already stated in the 14th Amendment. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Orange Suede Sofa. This decision was prior to FDR's internment practice. Apparently FDR did not seem concerned that Japanese American citizens were interned, who are suppose to have a right to trial by jury. Cmguy777 (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Citing a US federal law

s:Page:United_States_Statutes_at_Large_Volume_106_Part_1.djvu/357 contains the text of a US federal law, Public Law 102-321, which is elsewhere cited as "106 Stat. 325". Is there some good reason that it's not simply cited as PL 102-321? I don't remember seeing "Number Stat. Number" before; what is it called, and where can I find guidelines for using it? I understand that the first number is the number of the volume in the printed US Code where this public law is found, but I can't understand what "325" signifies. Nyttend (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Because the public laws are collected in bound volumes, called "Statutes at Large", which is how most libraries had them. Congress did publish the text of laws, and as I recall they were generally available free, but books are easier to deal with than things that can range from a single page to telephone directory thickness. The number after is the page number, which makes it easier to find where to go. See here.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; not knowing what to call it, I didn't even know how to search for it. I wondered if 325 were the page number in this case, but I was dissuaded by the 357 in the Wikisource pagename. Moreover, I thought that 325 was assigned to the law itself, which apparently extends over multiple pages. Nyttend (talk) 16:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's telling you where to find the first page of the law. If I were citing in a legal brief, and it was a long statute, I'd cite the page the provision I want the judge to look at as something like 106 Stat. 325, 331. He can find it from there.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

：It's a general legal convention throughout the common law world that anything that appears in anything multi-volume, be it judgments or articles (though usually not statutes as in many countries statutes are no longer published in continuous volumes the way they are done in the US), are cited as "[Volume #] [Name of work] [First page #]", to indicate the precise page referred to, the citation can be followed by "at [Cited page #]" or simply ", [Cited page #]". In some contexts the date is important, as the volume numbers might get recycled from year to year, but in other contexts the volume number alone is sufficient. In any case, where relevant, the year usually precedes the volume number. Whether square brackets or round brackets are used for the year can also be significant depending on the type of work cited - with judgments, often "(2002)" means a judgment published in 2002, whereas "[2002]" means a case decided in 2002. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 17:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Hope I'm not repeating too much, but yes to find the Statute at Large (which is technically the actual law) you'd find Volume 106 of the Statutes at large on page 325. There's also the question of codification and not all laws (in fact most laws passed by congress) aren't integrated into the U.S. Code. Technically the U.S. Code is not the source of federal law either, however there's a statute that makes anything published in the USC presumptively correct. I could be wrong on some details since it's been a long time that I've dealt with that kind of question. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Also, check out this page for more detail: [17] Shadowjams (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Nationalities of NATO officials

I stumbled across NATO#Structures, and was wondering why so many Deputy Secretaries General of NATO have been Italian - of the 14 so far, 10 have been Italian, and two of the others served under an Italian Secretary General. I see from Secretary General of NATO that that position is traditionally occupied by a European, while the Supreme Allied Commander Europe is traditionally American. I also noticed that of the 27 deputy SACEURs, 19 have been British and 8 German (between 1978 and and 1993 there was one of each for some reason, before 1973 they were all British, and since 1993 a mixture). Does anyone know the reasoning behind any of this? I suppose these four countries have generally been the most important members, excluding France (which has had strained relations with NATO), but how did these particular patterns emerge? 130.88.73.65 (talk) 18:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that the U.S. came to the realization that the exercising of real power has little to do with the name you call something. One of the key aspects of American Imperialism is the idea that you can basically do whatever you want, wherever you want, as long as you don't make any direct claims to the power. Old-style empires worked by actually conquering and incorporating territory into themselves. "You're not Gaul. You're now part of Rome", etc. etc. The U.S. realized, rather shrewdly, that if you let people keep the name of their country the same, you can claim you don't own that country, so people leave you alone, and you still get to own that country. The U.S. exerts no less control over those places than Rome or the British Empire did. The organization of NATO is no less so. It's moot who holds the named positions of leadership; the U.S. says "Jump!" and NATO says "How high?". The political machinations of who gets to put a title on their business cards doesn't mean much to how the system actually works. Perhaps the Italians are particular good at Politics. Maybe its a dumb, random streak. But it doesn't make much of a difference to the real politik. --Jayron32 20:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It is usual to bring a bunch of flowers to a date. You might end up with what happened to ANZUS if you forget the flowers. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I really think this is a bit of an exaggeration. The NATO article lists a number of serious disagreements between members, over command structures, expansion of the organisation's membership, and military interventions, and there are clearly cases where NATO has failed to adopt the US's preferred position (see the Iraq War). Your explanation would also seem to be contradicted by the fact the US has apparently insisted on having the SACEUR (the top military commander of NATO). I was more interested in why specifically these two deputy positions have consistently been given to Italians, Brits, and Germans in the manner that they have - it quite clearly isn't a coincidence. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 13:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)