Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

August 27

So-and-so's law

There is a "somebody's law" a la Murphy's, Parkinson's, etc. that says: if your organization uses some statistic as a metric of performance, then that statistic will come under tremendous pressure of manipulation and cease to be useful for anything. We have an article about it, but I don't remember the title. Anyone know? Thanks. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 04:37, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goodhart's law, I believe. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the article I remembered. Thanks! 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 05:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It explains the diarrhea of uninteresting scientific papers due to using the h-index as a measure of impact. --Lambiam 08:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Egypt, end of slavery 19th century

Greetings,

Came across a blog post which refers to the role of a case of a Circassian woman slave named 'Shanigal' in helping Britishers end slavery in Egypt by asking for prosecution/ justice.

Related sentences in blog post goes as: What finally discredited slavery in Egypt was a prosecution brought by a Circassian slave woman, Shanigal, against her master for raping her. ... Shanigal went to the British authorities to obtained justice, and got it. In doing so, she showed up the massive injustice and hypocrisy towards slavery in the upper and middle classes, with the result that she dealt a major blow against it...

I did google for Shanigal/ Shenigal Egypt but it did not return any results other than said blog post. True that one can not rely on blog posts for accuracy still may be there is some mistake in name spelling or some thing. Is it possible to confirm any such rape prosecution by British authorities in Egypt in 19th century that might have helped issue of slavery effectively ending?

Thanks, Bookku, 'Encyclopedias are for expanding information and knowledge' (talk) 11:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this source helpful? The spelling given is Shemsigul: [1]. 59.102.25.192 (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @ 59.102.25.192 , I have already taken note of Shemsigul in my draft article on slavery {{mono|(no doubt spelling of 'Shanigal' sounds a lot similar to 'Shemsigul' and a potent possibility would exist un til further research).But in Shemsigul's case, if I am not mistaken, there seem no mention of involvement of any British officials in providing justice, where as blog post confidently relates case of 'Shanigal' to facilitation of justice by British official and subsequent rooting out of slavery.

Warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 05:47, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Şemsî is a Turkish word of Arabic origin meaning "related to the Sun", and gül is a Turkish word of Persian origin meaning "rose". It is possible that the name Şemsîgül arose as a Turkification of a Circassian name Shenigal. If the date of 30 June 1854 is correct, Shemsigul cannot have presented her complaint to British officials. Until the British occupation of Egypt in 1882, Egypt was at least nominally under the control of the Ottoman Empire, and even remained so de jure until 1914. --Lambiam 09:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The paper on silo.tips is based on the account in Toledano's book Slavery and Abolition in the Ottoman Middle East. As it is an original translation by Toledano of the report recorded in Ottoman Turkish, it is unlikely that the blog post has a different source for the same story. But the similarities are so extensive (Şemsigül was Circassian too, sold as a slave to the Ottoman Turks and brought to Egypt; her complaint too was that her master raped her, and it was equally remarkable for a slave to bring such a complaint and find redress) that it is almost certain the blog post is a garbled version of the account by Toledano. --Lambiam 10:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idiomatic translation

Hi Folks!! Could somebody give an idiomatic translation for Die Vervolgung von NS-Tätern im geteilten Deutschland. Thanks. Its for the Hans Globe article. scope_creep^Talk 12:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The language desk might have more followers who could help you. But is "The persecution of Nazi perpetrators in divided Germany" not what it means? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:27, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Verfolgung can also mean "pursuit" or "prosecution". This review of the work suggests that "prosecution" (in the legal sense - Strafverfolgung) is the intended meaning. 59.102.25.192 (talk) 12:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Baseball Bugs:, that's what I thought it meant. Another editor @NONIS STEFANO: has changed from Persecution to Prosecution. Hi @59.102.25.192:, Prosecution is more accurate? scope_creep^Talk 12:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: Would it be normal to change the title, when the books states it The persecution of Nazi perpetrators in divided Germany It sound odd to me, changing a book title. scope_creep^Talk 12:57, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a source that translates the title? If not, is the book centered on legal trials and convictions of Nazis? If so, it should be "prosecute". The term "persecute" has a similar root to "prosecute" and "pursue" (having to do with "following"), but they have evolved to have distinct meanings in English. I've been amused to see the chase group in the Vuelta a España labeled grupo perseguidor. They're not persecuting the leaders, they're just following (chasing) them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: I should have put it more forcefully: the German-language review of Ms Weinke's dissertation that I linked to makes it clear that it deals with the criminal prosecution of former Nazis. 59.102.25.192 (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thanks Folks. scope_creep^Talk 13:39, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denazification? 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More than half of the German adult population had been involved in keeping the Nazi program running; only for the more egregious crimes was prosecution a practical possibility. Former Nazis who were not prosecuted would still be removed, as part of the denazification effort, from influential positions. So these are not the same thing. --Lambiam 21:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Denazification would've been a bit stronger if they didn't start worrying about communism after the first few years. Perhaps one of the few silver linings of Nazi nazis is they didn't cause Vietnam/Afghan-level quagmire and GOP-level lie-spreading. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the misery perpetrated by the Nazi regime was aided by their official promulgation of the antisemitic stab-in-the-back lie. "Public enlightenment" by the media after the Gleichschaltung under the direction of the Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda under the direction of Goebbels was a pervasive bread-and-butter operation that made it virtually impossible for the German people to discern between the fiction of the Nazi state and reality. In comparison, the disinformation of Breitbart News, Fox, the GOP, Newsmax and One America News combined is child's play. --Lambiam 09:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No endless asymmetric resistance violence though. And forgot to say after losing power, while in power obviously was among the closest a government has ever been to 1948. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 28

Himmler Peace Negotiations

Hello,

I've heard that Himmler tried to negotiate peace with the Allies during World War II, but upon researching it, I haven't been able to find any information on what he was actually offering/suggesting in these talks: is it unknown what he was suggesting to the Allies, have I just missed some information, or is this all not true? If you have any information, I'd be appreciative and happy to hear it.

Thank you,

User:Heyoostorm^_talk! 01:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might begin by following up the references cited in our article sub-section Heinrich Himmler#Peace negotiations. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.179.94 (talk) 03:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic/Orthodox saints

Britannica says Mesrop Mashtots is "venerated as a saint in the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Armenian Catholic Church, and in Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches."

That he is a saint of the first two is common knowledge, but I am having a hard time verifying that he's canonized by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. Websites like catholic.org and catholic.net do seem to say/imply that, but he doesn't seem to be in the Roman Martyrology and other lists of Catholic saints. Is there no easy way to check this? ----Երևանցի ^talk 14:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an Italian Catholic site citing him: http://www.santiebeati.it/Detailed/41370.html . In the Italian Wikipedia's article about him there are a few hints: "Venerato da tutte le Chiese che ammettono il culto dei santi" = "Venerated by all Churches that admit the cult of saints" & "Dal Martirologio Romano alla data del 17 febbraio: In Armenia, san Mesrop, dottore degli Armeni: discepolo di san Narsete e scrivano nel palazzo reale, divenuto monaco, creò un alfabeto, perché il popolo potesse essere avviato alle sante Scritture, tradusse i due Testamenti e compose inni e altri cantici in lingua armena." = "From the Roman Martyrology to the date of February 17: In Armenia, St. Mesrop, doctor of the Armenians: disciple of St. Narses and scribe in the royal palace, who became a monk, created an alphabet, so that the people could be sent to the Holy Scriptures, translated the two Testaments and composed hymns and other songs in the Armenian language." --95.238.130.59 (talk) 16:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He died before the churches split apart after the Council of Chalcedon, so if he was a saint before that, he'd still be a saint in all the churches (unless they removed him later). Adam Bishop (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 29

bnei elohim

what is meaning of the phrase "bnei elohim" in Gen 6:2?..and why has it been translated as "sons of God" in some Hebrew Bibles, and "sons of rulers" in others?..the only other occurrences of this phrase at Job 1:6 and 2:1 seems to be referring to angels..there is clearly support for this interpretation in the Greek New Testament. why then should its presence at Gen 6:2 refer to human sons of Seth, in the Jewish religion? both these translations can't be correct, how is it possible that there can be two interpretations?.see Sons of God Gfigs (talk) 20:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While אֱלוֹהִים‎ or אֱלֹהִים‎ (ʾélôhím) is grammatically the plural of the common noun אֱלוֹהַּ‎ or אֱלֹהַּ‎ (ʾélôah) meaning "god", it is also a usual term for God in the Hebrew Bible – see Elohim, already occurring as the third word of Genesis 1:1. The Hebrew script has no capital letters to distinguish this use from the plural use, and so the expression בְנֵי־הָאֱלֹהִים‎ is ambiguous: it is not possible to make out on orthographic or grammatical grounds whether the use of אֱלֹהִים‎ is the plural of a word meaning "god" or the usual term we translate as "God". Translators who translate it as "rulers" apparently take it as the plural of the common noun; in that case the choice for this particular translation may have been inspired by the orthodox rejection of a plurality of gods. If the intention is "sons of God", there is no immediate reason to assume that this refers to the same entities in all contexts. Compare the diverse meanings of Son of Man. --Lambiam 20:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As Lambiam succinctly indicates, the word 'elohim' is capable of many interpretations: and it remains a stumbling stone on the way to understanding the deepest mysteries, if indeed they are capable of comprehension. See also Julius Wellhausen's Prolegomena on archive.org. (free registration required). Beware: there are many, many, many versions of the texts which have come down to us. None are definitive, none are 'original' and all are subject to various theological or scholarly interpretations. They used to burn people alive for disagreeing. MinorProphet (talk) 23:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

its true, religion continues to be a source of violence..and we are ruining the earth..I hope there are friendly ET's out there, who know more than us, can help us. if there is a God, I hope he cares about us, will eliminate suffering.. Gfigs (talk) 04:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: ,why was the plural elohim translated as "God" in Gen 1:1 ,instead of "Gods", "gods" or "rulers"? if that is how it was written? surely that is not an accurate translation? Gfigs (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

does this perhaps recall Laban's Teraphim? maybe that is where the answer also is, with Pluralis excellentiae? Gfigs (talk) 06:43, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this verse the term is the subject of the sentence, and the verb בָּרָא‎ (bará) is in the past-tense masculine singular third-person form, so the subject is grammatically not plural. Compare the singular use of the formally plural but grammatically singular proper noun "United States", as used in "The United States is a highly developed country". --Lambiam 07:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

this grammar is going way beyond my understanding.. although, think I understand the example of US..thanks Gfigs (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it is so complicated, and difficult to comprehend this idea of spirit life..hope theres someone out there in the universe, who knows the answers, can help us Gfigs (talk) 08:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who accepts the idea that supernatural entities are a creation of human culture, is is not harder to comprehend than the idea of the Marvel Universe. --Lambiam 12:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Elohist is interesting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested in this "idea of spirit life", try The Story of My Heart,[2] by Richard Jefferies who grew up near Swindon, Wiltshire, England, not far from where I used to live. The hill on the Wiltshire Downs which he used to climb is visible for miles around , and I have had many visions there. Be of good cheer: all will be revealed in time. MinorProphet (talk) 05:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, be of good cheer. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks, will check these out..thanks also Lambiam, for explanation of this Hebrew phrase Gfigs (talk) 07:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The classic commentator Rashi, who was a master of Biblbical Hebrew lexicography, cites Exodus 4:16 as a clear example of when this exact term is clearly talking about a human - when Moses is told that he will be "elohim" - a leader - over Aaron. In Gen 6:2, Rashi therefore translates it as princes/judges. Gfigs --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 10:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

interesting.. Gfigs (talk) 05:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there is beauty and order..yet this world is a horrible place..natural disasters.. accidents..sickness..old age, and death..we do need a Messiah, someone sent by God who can fix these things..they said Jesus would do it..maybe another will come from outside this solar system, or in some other way?. yet, not easy to believe a God exists, at least that's how I feel Gfigs (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David was ogling Bathsheba..that don't think is too good..if there was internet, probably even worse?.x Gfigs (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 30

Germany after the capitulation

A user asked this over at the Reference desk on the Finnish Wikipedia:

Colonel-General Alfred Jodl signed the unconditional capitulation of Germany on 7 May 1945, after which Germany ceased to exist as a state. Suppose the next day Hans gets caught red-handed trying to steal Fritz's bike somewhere in occupied Germany. According to what law is Hans judged? Is German law applied here, even though the German state doesn't exist any more, does the law depend on the state that occupied the territory in question, or do we live in anarchy where Hans's fate is left to the angry public, who might shoot him in the head?

Now I kind of wonder at the "Germany ceased to exist as a state" part. Somehow I doubt Germany as a legal entity would just have been wiped out and replaced by what would essentially have been extensions of France, the UK, the USA and the USSR. What exactly was the situation at that point? JIP | Talk 23:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Legal status of Germany, Potsdam Agreement, Allied-occupied Germany, Soviet Military Administration in Germany, and Berlin Declaration (1945). "after the gross criminal abuses of Nazism, and in the circumstances of complete defeat, Germany now had no government or central administration and that the vacated civil authority in Germany had consequently been assumed as a condominium of the four Allied Representative Powers on behalf of the Allied Governments overall, an authority later constituted into the Allied Control Council" DuncanHill (talk) 23:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another good article is Martial law. Immediately after the war, Germany was under martial law; which military had the authority over our erstwhile bike thief Hans depends on which of the occupied zones of control that Hans lived in at the time. As noted above by DuncanHill, the division of Germany into zones of control was already decided ahead of time by the four Allied powers at Potsdam, and martial law was essentially enacted as those powers moved in and took over territory. Of note is that equivalent treatment was NOT a reality among the four zones of control; the Germans living in the east tried desperately to move westward to avoid the advancing Soviet army, which bent on enacting a bit of revenge for their own sufferings at the hands of the Germans, were less interested in "due process" than the other allied powers. German evacuation from Central and Eastern Europe and Soviet war crimes#Germany are good overviews there. --Jayron 32 10:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think from the wording of the OP's question, they are generally already familiar with the details of the continuity of the states themselves, at least in the broad strokes. What they seem to be inquiring about is the form, scope, and doctrinal/jurisdictional foundation of the legal system (or at least the justice system) in post-war Germany. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JIP, the answer to your question depends on the scope of time we are talking about. Before we even get to the post-war era, it is important to understand for context that much of the continuity of German law had already been lost, pre-occupation: first off, the Nazi apparatus had hollowed out much of the resistance in the courts to it's rule (and to it's more controversial powers and policies) systematically, through intimidation and outright reprisals against those voices which did oppose the increasing monopoly on power of the party/the overthrow of democratic processes/the Race Laws and other abrogations of civil rights and due process, and support for that (not by any means small, unfortunately) portion of the legal community and judiciary who were happy to further all or a part of this strategy for increased concentration of state power. Ultimately the administration of new legal order was channeled increasingly through "special courts" and military courts (including of the drumhead court variety), further consolidating the fascist stranglehold on power and diminishing means of effective resistance of a legal sort. These developments also advanced along simultaneous lines in terms of the legislation itself, of course, which is an equally mixed bag of intimidation and outright complicity from those already within the relevant bodies. Add on to all of this the actual obliteration of the supporting infrastructure (state and physical) and massive attrition of personnel in the late and post-war periods, and you get a situation where, but for the occupational forces controlling their immediate spheres of influence, there would have been very little in the way of complete anarchy when it came to criminal conduct.

Early into Germany's occupation by the allies and their administrative partition of its territories, they had already agreed upon a somewhat unified approach (the Potsdam Agreement) for how to handle reconstruction of Germany, including it's legal system. Of course, in reality, there were great differences of opinion between the Western powers and Russia (and to a much lesser extent, differences between the three Western allies) about the exact form of the state structures and justice systems, reflecting their very different plans for the future of Europe and the disposition of Germany in particular. But in principle, they had a greed on a basic framework for the reconstruction and 'denazification' of German society. This proceeded along numerous state and cultural levels, but needless to say, the legal code was of particular interest in this regard. So the allies set about methodically comparing pre- and post-Nazi era German law, informed further by other contemporary continental Civil Law systems (and just a dash maybe of influence from American and English common law), to recreate the German legal code in a fashion that would not be rejected wholesale by German cultural mores but was also expunged as completely as possible of Nazi influence. Several small armies of lawyers (some German, more occupational, and a not small number German expatriots who could be trusted by their adopted nations) generated the new code from the ground up, which would be adopted by a combination of fiat and eventually codification to varying extent by the nascent East and West German states, each influenced very heavily by the Soviet and West (or, before long, NATO) sponsor states in how justice would ultimately be conceived and administered.

But in the immediate post-war era, in practice authority for law and order was shared by the local proto-authorities and the occupational military forces. For the first few years, both police forces and courts of the native German variety were meager things with authority often tightly constrained by the exercise of power of the occupational forces: in the portions of Germany under Soviet control, this control was more unified under the military and the elements of the state police that were already being developed under Soviet guidance. In the American, British, and French controlled territories, there tended to be both civilian oversight of reconstruction efforts (foreign ministry/department bureaucracies) and, needless to say, military authority. There was a period towards the beginning of the occupation where the various directives of the occupational forces all converged on a pre-Potsdam policy of shutting what little remained of the courts down, until they could be re-established in a free of even a whiff of influence of the former Nazi state, in terms of both persons and concepts: the special courts and Nazi party courts of course were abolished with no intent of their return in any form. Still, the idea was, in theory, that criminal matters not of direct interest to occupational authorities or to the war crimes processes would be eventually handled by the German courts. In practice, if any of the occupational powers wanted someone to stay in prison for any reason, that party didn't have much recourse to appeal.

Nevertheless, nominal return of authority to the German courts (along with significant other state apparatuses) got underway by 1947-48. Noteworthy is the fact that this required accepting that former members of the Nazi power would have to be granted some stewardship of the legal system, including the restored judiciary, since they were just too large a statistical portion of the remaining legal experts needed to maintain the courts. This lead to some troubling lasting influences of Nazi ideology and thwarted prosecutions for some violent political crimes conducted by former members of Nazi paramilitary groups: the occupational authorities were known to throw their clout around to get retrials in some of these cases, but it was clear that expunging Nazi ideologies from the legal community would become a somewhat generational matter.

On a practical note, it's worth adding that, using your hypothetical scenario or anything remotely like it as a the basis for discussion, it's probably fair to say there was no recourse to justice for petty crimes early on: the size of the police forces, their remit of influence, their allowed equipment and the scope of their physical jurisdiction were all very limited and their resources scarce. With murder common, the hunt for Nazi war criminals ongoing, an absolute epidemic of rape across the country, and black market profiteering and corruption everywhere, petty theft would not have been much of priority. That said, you can bet there was a fair deal of street justice incident to thefts much smaller than a bike: rationing was strict and basic resources scarce in major population centers for years following Germany's defeat. The German system would also be called upon to play a significant role in trying those guilty of crimes committed under the Nazi regime: while much of the highest levels of these crimes were prosecuted by the allies under war crimes courts, the vast majority of trials for murders and other violent crimes during the Nazi era would eventually be tried by German courts (although the legal framework applied by these courts could vary between utilizing the national German law and the war crimes standards, allowing for significant influence by the allied authorities) further straining the system. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 11:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even in stable, well-organized states petty crime mostly goes unpunished. Unless someone is caught In flagrante delicto, it is rare for most instances of petty crime to be sorted out. When you report such a crime to police, it gets filed as a report and basically filed away until someone gets caught who they can connect your crime to. For something like someone stealing your bike out of your yard overnight, if no one actually catches them doing so, they aren't going to be caught. --Jayron 32 17:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone on the Finnish Wikipedia has replied:

Did Germany cease to exist? As far as I know the government ceased to exist, but a state is more than its government. See here at the English Wikipedia: German Instrument of Surrender.

That's what I was thinking, just because Germany had no government any more doesn't mean there wasn't a Germany any more. JIP | Talk 03:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Germany didn't cease to exist, the German state ceased to exist. There was nothing with any of the characteristics of a state. DuncanHill (talk) 03:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, Germany has different meanings. As a nation, it continued to exist. As a state it did not. --Jayron 32 10:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Germany was theoretically throughout the Cold War period an occupied country that was given a lot of leeway. In 1984 the commander of the British garrison in Berlin argued that a firing range was unaffected by West German environmental laws because "I am the rightful successor of Dönitz...and I have legal immunity"! (Ardargh, Germany and the Germans, 2nd ed. p. 36) Blythwood (talk) 22:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 31

What questions are on the 2021 Canadian census questionnaire?

I do not reside in Canada and have no intention of attempting to answer the Canadian census of 2021. But I would like to know what questions are asked. It seems surprisingly hard to find out via the web. Where is this information? Michael Hardy (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is this it?[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Or this one for the 2021 short-form census: [4] (I think I remember hearing in a previous year that about 4/5 of people got the short form, but even if that was correct, I don't know if it still is in 2021.) --184.144.99.72 (talk) 23:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rule still applies: 4/5 households receive the short form to complete, and the other one gets the long form. Who gets which form is assigned randomly, but the proportion is maintained at all levels (city blocks, neighborhoods, cities, regions and provinces). It used to be that census takers would go door-to-door to distribute the appropriate form to each household, but in 2021 it was all done on-line: you received a card through the mail asking you to complete the form on-line, and the unique code you were assigned and which you entered upon logging in determined which form you got to fill out. Xuxl (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How does Canada count people without internet access? --Jayron 32 16:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See question 3 on this FAQ page [5]. The objective was to have the overwhelming majority of respondents complete the census on-line. For those who did not or could not, they proceeded as in the olden days: enumerators contacted them directly to obtain the required information. From what I read, the response rate was very high, given that almost all Canadians have home internet access [6]. Xuxl (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of internet access would not be the only reason for failing to answer. Simple neglect of the matter or distraction by other concerns in life could also be the reason. So would conscientious objection, which (if I'm not mistaken) is not condoned by law but of which those who run the census have long been aware, and they try to convince such persons by telling them the information will not be used for evil tyrannical purposes such as making them pay even more taxes. Another reason may be unawareness of the census resulting from failure to receive a notice in the mail. Scuh failure happened to someone I know: he was a tenant on the second floor of a house and the post office had never been notified that they should regard that as a newly separate address. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was surprised when a census enumerator came to my door 3 months after census day this year. One of my neighbors had died and the enumerator was asking how many people were living in that house on census day. I wonder how long after census day they go on doing followups like this. --184.144.99.72 (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taliban members

Hello! I am mostly intrigued by something that perhaps some of you may help me. Has any of you seen old videos on YouTube or elsewhere of the visit by Taliban members to the US (Texas) when Bush was Governor? The visit is on one of Michael Moore's documentaries. My question is, are those members of the Taliban who visited Texas here on Wikipedia with their articles? I don't know their names and I was mostly intrigued whether they are alive and if they continue being members of the Taliban. Kindest regards. CoryGlee (talk) 14:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a bunch of good references to be found here. --Jayron 32 14:17, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Ghous is said to have led the delegation. --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Philistines article

Editor has removed material at Special:Diff/1041484366 citing not found in source. As page 202 is not available online, I can not confirm the validity. Hoping someone here has access to the book or can direct me to somewhere that can help.

Killebrew, Ann E. (2005). Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, and Early Israel, 1300-1100 B.C.E. Atlanta, Georgia: Society of Biblical Literature. ISBN 1-58983-097-0.

You may also want to look at asking at WP:REX, which is more suited to these sorts of questions. --Jayron 32 15:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book is available at Z-Library. Page 202 says "Although no early Philistine texts or inscriptions have thus far been discovered or conclusively identified,[21] this group's early history is well known...".-gadfium 19:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But see this blog post. Perhaps the statement in our article should read: "As of 2005, no early Philistine texts or inscriptions had been discovered or conclusively identified" – although I cannot judge without further examination whether the identification reported in the 2006 article "Cypro-Minoan Inscriptions Found in Ashkelon" in Israel Exploration Journal can be considered conclusive. --Lambiam 21:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, at a minimum, I'll restore and date the statement while seeing if I can find further information on the topic. And Thanks for the REX reminder. Knew we had a page but couldn't remember where. Slywriter (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 1

presidential traditions broken by trump

is there an online up-to-date list of presidential traditions broken by trump, which includes his non-release of tax returns and him skipping biden's inauguration 49.149.137.31 (talk) 06:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First there would need to be a List of presidential traditions. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly what you're asking for, but see this comprehensive article by The Atlantic: "50 Moments That Define an Improbable Presidency"[7], the moments being largely similar to the "broken traditions" to which the OP refers. It was written half-way through the presidency, though, so one could easily double the list by including the final two years. A job for current and future historians, before everyone forgets. Xuxl (talk) 12:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call Trump's presidency "forgettable". He's not going to join the ranks of the Millard Fillmores, the Chester Alan Arthurs or the Zachary Taylors in terms of "who were they" forgetableness. I sense that many Americans will never forget the Trump presidency. Often in the middle of the night. With much screaming. ---Jayron 32 18:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The four-year period as a whole won't be forgotten, but some of the specific indignities or transgressions may be if not properly documented. There's already a massive lobby at work denying facts and attempting to make people forget some of what happened. See for example [8]. Xuxl (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Meh… Trump now belongs to historians. They will decide what was and was not important about his time in office. And in 20 years, the next generation of historians will re-evaluate and decide that the older historians got it ALL WRONG… and then the generation after that will revise yet again … and so on and so on. Blueboar (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And in 20 years there will still be a cadre of deluded individuals who'll be insisting that Trump did not lose the 2020 election and all the damning evidence will be released "very soon". Such patience is truly admirable. And stupid. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please my friends, this is getting pretty clearly into WP:NOTAFORUM territory: this project, including the reference desks, is not a space for open-ended speculation or observations of this nature, especially where it begins to bleed into our editors registering their own opinions on the matter. If anyone has any references which address the OP's inquiry directly, that would be great, but an IP giving the perfect excuse (in the rhetorical sense) to gripe about Trump's (admittedly undeniable) transgressiveness should not be interpreted as a greenlight to opine at length about his qualities and legacy, or the supposed qualities of his supporters. That's just not what the RD are for, even were everything said perfectly objective: we don't do discussion for discussion's sake here, but rather provide direct answers to well-defined questions--and those answers should come in the form of sources (or at least WP articles) directly relevant to the OPs inquiry, with maybe just a minimum of extra text to contextualize them. Aside from Xuxl's responses, we're getting pretty far afield from anything like that. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, the OP may be interested in Donald Trump and the Norms of Presidency which is more of an essay than a list, but is referenced.

I also found a Washington Post article called The definitive list of the 20 presidential norms Trump broke. Alansplodge (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

why has no two-term us president skipped their successor's inauguration?

this obviously excludes presidents who died in office during their second term. the closest a two-term us president got to snubbing their successor's inauguration was nixon, who wasn't there during ford's swearing in but did meet him that day and they walked together. other than that, no two-term us president snubbed their successor's inauguration. why? 49.149.137.31 (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are the "666 new laws" coming in effect in Texas today?

Resolved

– ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 20:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous news sources are placing that number in their headlines, and I wonder if there's any kind of compiled list I can access — not just the ones of most significance. ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 15:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go. --Jayron 32 16:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 20:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A further 18 Acts start to come into effect today.[9]. 2A00:23C4:570A:600:1C6E:E484:CCAB:B25D (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drat… having 684 ruins the fun. Blueboar (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my ignorance, but why is it that so many bills are all coming into effect on the same day? Is this sort of thing a regular occurrence in Texas? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Many states will pass laws that have a "start date". Nearly 700 of them seems excessive, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - In California, it is commonplace that new laws go into effect on January 1, so it is also common for newspapers to publish articles in the last week of December about upcoming changes in the law. Why Texas chose September 1, I have no idea. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the State's fiscal year? —Tamfang (talk) 02:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- - A number that high seems common for Texas [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] although it does seem that in recent years, fewer are taking effect immediately. See also [15] Nil Einne (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2

was donald trump proud that he skipped biden's inaugration

Enough. Matt Deres (talk) 14:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

49.149.137.31 (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

why did hillary clinton and joe biden attend trump's inauguration but trump did not attend biden's inauguration?

49.149.137.31 (talk) 00:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

49… Could you perhaps keep all your questions about Trump not attending Biden’s inauguration to one single thread? Starting so many threads about the same issue can sometimes be considered disruptive. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Class. You've either got it or you haven't. DuncanHill (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because Trump has bad manners. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was in furtherance of his fictional story that he himself "won" the election, so in effect his taking off early was in protest, i.e. refusing to concede. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fidele's Grassy Tomb

Henry Newbolt's poem "Fidele's Grassy Tomb" is set at the island church of Orchardleigh, where Newbolt himself is buried. Is the poem based on local folklore? His wife was a Duckworth, of the family which had the church restored, when it could have come to pass that "laying the floor anew, they found/ In the tomb of the Squire the bones of a hound". Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity, he obviously got the title from William Collins, but I mean the bones, as it were, of the story. DuncanHill (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a compatible story, not presenting a bibliographically identifiable source but quoting an author Jan Toms, perhaps this one. The story can reportedly^[16] also be found in the book Palaces for Pigs by Lucinda Lambton, pp. 222–225. --Lambiam 10:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Toms book is Animal Graves and Memorials, but no Google Books preview. Alansplodge (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t know if this fits with the rest of the poem, but searching for dog folktales in Somerset I found Odds and Ends of Somerset Folklore (1958 article): "I was also told that the reason w h y n o dog's bones are ever accidentally excavated in churchyards was b e c a u s e unpopular people were 'laid atop, so's they was both kept awake' — t h e dog to do his duty, and the sinner t o repent in endless wakefulness." 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 3

the good as heretical constraint

There is a view that principles of ethics can be derived without divine revelation, because the nature of good and evil is largely self-evident. And there is a view that that idea is heretical, because it supposes that God's ability to define the good is constrained. These summaries are naturally compressed, but I think not too compressed to ask the question: Is there a name for either of these doctrines? --Tamfang (talk) 02:51, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Virtue ethics versus Divine command theory? 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 03:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tamfang -- if you're referring to an idea that good and evil are two equal principles, and that God is no more powerful than Satan (or whatever you call the master of evil), then that's similar to ancient dualistic religions. If you're referring to an idea that pure scientific knowledge and experiment could ever by itself determine what is morally good and bad, then that's the Is-ought problem... AnonMoos (talk) 05:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Euthyphro dilemma seems to be the name of the debate. That article says that the first point of view "goes by a variety of names, including intellectualism, rationalism, realism, naturalism, and objectivism", to which I might add moral realism and humanism. The "second horn of the dilemma" is probably best described as divine command theory, as the IP-monikered editor above mentioned. (Two of the links in that list are actually easter eggs, in the article, so they really go to natural law and moral universalism.) Card Zero (talk) 12:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any active discussion groups on English literature, literary theory etc.?

Wonder if there is any active groups involving researchers and teachers who can answer queries and explain things to noobs on any platform like Facebook, Telegram or somewhere on the web? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:f00a:20c6:6995:6b37:559e:27a8 (talk • contribs)

The subreddit /r/AskLiteraryStudies/ appears to be active. Card Zero (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there are multiple stackexchange sites on those topics too. 2601:648:8202:350:0:0:0:2B99 (talk) 18:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish Royal Guard

Please, can someone find the complete list of commanders from 1504 to now, and edit them on the page? Thank you very much! --79.35.154.3 15:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 4

Zhu Cilang

What happened to Zhu Cilang, the son of the Chongzhen Emperor, during the Transition from Ming to Qing? How did he die?

What is the best Bible book on the market?

What would be the best book available dealing with the question of the actual meaning and authenticity of the events referred to in the Bible, meeting the following criteria (in descending order of priority):

main objective: reconstructing the historical truth as far as possible, implying:
- a factual, sober, rational stance as unbiased / neutral as can be, not requiring religious faith by the reader
- an empirical–historical approach, i. e. with strong focus on verifiable archaeological or other reliable extrabiblical sources
- a strictly historical, chronological approach (i. e., for instance, no retrospective interpretation of events from the Old Testament in the light of the New Testament)
the best possible reputation of the work itself and/or its authors (ideally several luminaries) in terms of the broadest possible recognition and consensus among the international academic community of the relevant evidence-based (!) sciences (such as archaeology, religious studies, ancient Near East studies, Egyptology / Assyriology etc.)
as up-to-date as possible
as concise and comprehensible as possible, but as sophisticated (meaning complex) as necessary (it needn't be extremely detailed)

In fact, it wouldn't even have to cover the whole (Christian) bible as such – my main field of interest is actually approaching the best-documented theories about the truth of

the events in the Second Book of Moses (Exodus), and
the life of Jesus – including the question what most probably mobilized his followers after his death.

However, as I seem to be looking for something like the "Holy Grail" of a [historical-critical] bible introduction, I would also be okay with two books if necessary. (As German is my mother tongue, German would be ideal, but I guess my understanding of English is more or less reasonable – so this is a secondary criterion only to consider in case all the requirements above are fully met – but I guess the best of the best will be in English, and that would do totally fine as well!) Hoping for your kind, profound advice--Hildeoc (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have some uninvolved (being Wiccan) interest in this subject, and have various books dealing with particular aspects of this very large and hotly disputed topic, but I can't think of one (or two) that really deal with the whole issue comprehensively. I'm sure you've already read our article Historicity of the Bible.

Others will have suggestions, but the UsefulCharts YouTube channel has recently made a series of 4 "Who Wrote the Bible" videos which deal with this topic and which I found useful: Episode 1 is here. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.2 (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Doris Webster, author, 1885-1967

What do we know about Doris Webster, co-author of Consider the Consequences! (1930)? We have an article about her co-author, Mary Alden Hopkins, with whom she wrote several books. I can find a number of these books, and her solo works, listed online, but no biographical information, other than that, according to this (paywalled) article she was the wife of Samuel C. Webster, with whom she collaborated on the novel Uncle James' Shoes, was a director of the Rider Press, and of the Cumulative Digest Corporation (whatever that was). OCLC has her dates as 1885-1967. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:37, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The husband may be Samuel Charles Webster, son of Charles Luther Webster, in which case, Doris was née Webb. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

confirmed via [17]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:00, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the ISFDB, a Doris Webb wrote two reviews of Oz books by L. Frank Baum in 1914 and 1915, which were reprinted in the (rather well-produced) fanzine The Baum Bugle in its Autumn 2014 and Winter 2015 issues. Hope this helps! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.0.2 (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]