Humanities desk
< June 1	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 3 >

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

June 2[edit]

Same Art Acevedo in Miami, FL?[edit]

I came across an article about the Miami Police Chief Art Acevedo and wanted to know more about him. So I found the Wikipedia page about his life, career, etc. All fine, but the citations of his employment at various police departments never mentioned why he left. Apparently he spent decades with the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and left there to head up the police in Austin, TX, then left there to be chief in Houston, TX, then left there to head up the Miami, FL police department. All of this seems like a lot of moving around for a police chief - just my opinion, maybe it's common?? I've personally known two police chiefs (of different locales) and neither did the kind of department hopping that Chief Acevedo did. Again, maybe it's my limited experience in these matters. Anyhow, in my quest for 'why' Chief Acevedo might have left various departments, I came across this article about a police officer named Art Acevedo in Muskogee, OK. See https://law.justia.com/cases/oklahoma/supreme-court/1995/4151-1.html. So, to sum up, I'm wondering if the Art Acevedo mentioned in the law article is the same man as the Police Chief in Miami, FL. Thanks in advance.

Courtesy link: Art Acevedo. --Lambiam 11:10, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For a rank and file police officer, moving around departments would be unusual. However, for top leadership positions in police departments in large American cities, it's common to look for outside candidates, especially when there is a perception that important reforms are needed. Just to cite two examples taken from fiction that reflect this, Jonathan Franzen's novel The Twenty-Seventh City is about the city of St. Louis hiring a woman from India to be the new police chief (the fact she's from India is considered unusual, not the fact she did not come from within the city's police ranks), or the TV Series Tommy, which features a woman becoming the Los Angeles police chief, coming from New York, as there are no qualified female candidates within the ranks. This article from the Miami Herald [1] states that Acevedo did not seek out the Miami position, but was head-hunted by an outside firm. The fact that he is of Hispanic background and headed the police forces in two large cities with very large Hispanic communities that have been significantly under-represented in the police ranks before getting the Miami job is certainly not a coincidence. It is unlikely that there is a huge basin of eligible candidates of Hispanic origin with relevant experience from which large cities can hire top police executives. Xuxl (talk) 12:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, it is seems to be almost a requirement that very senior officers have served in different parts of the country. A quick look at List of Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police shows that all of the 18 office holders in the last 60 years had previously held senior appointments in other police forces before moving to the top job in London. Alansplodge (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rap singers' short lives[edit]

Rap singers seem to have extraordinarily short lifespans, often dying in their 20s. What could account for this? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are strong connections between rap culture and violence, guns, gangs and drugs. --Viennese Waltz 08:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just out of curiosity, Jack, did you get this from your personal impression, or does it have something to do with this graph shown in The Conversation's article "Music to die for: how genre affects popular musicians’ life expectancy"? Regarding the latter, it has some flaws, particularly that the given "average age at death" doesn't include those musicians who are still alive, and whose age at death isn't known. This, of course, affects young genres such as rap, hip hop, even metal and punk to a much stronger degree than the genres on the graph's left (blues, jazz, country, ...). See also "Case Study: Musicians and mortality" in Calling Bullshit. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just my personal impression. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just rappers who die young. Amy Winehouse, for example. The stickier question is whether those younger deaths are statistically significant. The graph cited above suggests so, but maybe more data is needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The graph above only falsely suggests so, because just about all living rappers (who form the vast majority of rappers) haven't even reached the age of average life expectancy yet and are not included in the calculation, unlike with genres that have existed for more than 50 years and which do include a significant number of musicians who died at an age far closer to (and even above) average life expectancy. ---Sluzzelin talk 13:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only correct answer to this question is in the third word of Jack's question, which is "seem". We can't reliably answer why things seem to you, Jack. That's the internal workings of your own mind, and we cannot diagnose those. See also cognitive bias for the only reasonable answer to your question; as to the answers provided by others regarding the methodology of any putative studies on the matter, they also speak for themselves. --Jayron 32 16:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

27 club might be relevant. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As usual my answer (which I thought was quite good) gets drowned out by those of others. I would have thought it was self-evident that the main reason why many rappers die young is that their lives are intertwined with gang culture, drugs & guns in a way that the lives of, say, classical musicians and progressive rock musicians are not. --Viennese Waltz 17:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your answer is do you know that rappers actually die younger? There's no point in providing an explanation for a proposition which itself has not been established as true, plurium interrogationum and all of that. How can you answer "why?" to a question where you don't even know if the thing you're explaining is actually true? --Jayron 32 18:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, more to the point, you didn't provide any references for your answer. You provided no extra reading or anything. This is not the "tell other people what I think is true" desk. This is the reference desk. Provide a reference. --Jayron 32 18:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You want a reference? OK. Rappers who died under 30 from violent and/or drug-related deaths: Lil Peep, Ol' Dirty Bastard, Pimp C, Eyedea, Mac Miller, Keef Cowboy, Juice Wrld, Tupac Shakur, The Notorious B.I.G, Proof, Mac Dre, Fat Pat, Half a Mill, Seagram, Big Hawk, Huey, Bugz, VL Mike, Dolla, The Jacka, Nipsey Hussle, Lil Phat, Doe B, Soulja Slim, Bankroll Fresh, Young Greatness, 3-2, Pop Smoke, King Von. Classical musicians who died under 30 from violent and/or drug-related deaths: none. Hope that helps, --Viennese Waltz 19:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a reference. That's a list. I can create a list of equal length of people who performed other genres of music who also died before 30. We need a reference, which is to say a citation, link, etc. where we can read where someone actually did a study or something reliable that is actual evidence. Naming a list of cherry-picked dead people helps no one. An actual, scholarly, reliable, published study where the proposition that rappers die younger than other musicians is verified in some way. That's what we need. --Jayron 32 19:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a 2016 study that looks to have a better methodology than the Conversation article reported above. Life Expectancy and Cause of Death in Popular Musicians. The researchers compared mortality of musicians to mortality in “demographically matched populations”. From the abstract: “Results showed that popular musicians have shortened life expectancy compared with comparable general populations…. Mortality impacts differed by music genre. In particular, excess suicides and liver-related disease were observed in country, metal, and rock musicians; excess homicides were observed in 6 of the 14 genres, in particular hip hop and rap musicians. For accidental death, actual deaths significantly exceeded expected deaths for country, folk, jazz, metal, pop, punk,and rock.” The paper doesn’t proffer definitive reasons, saying “we can only speculate about the potential causes of these results. It is likely to be a combination of factors inherent in the popular music industry and the vulnerability from either constitutional factors or adverse childhood experiences that many young musicians bring with them into their profession.” 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As a list, VW's data isn't particularly accurate. For example, Ol' Dirty Bastard died at 35, Pimp C at 33, Proof at 32, Mac Dre at 34, Half a Mill at 30, Big Hawk at 36, Huey at 32, and V L Mike at 32. No mention of Jacqueline du Pré, who had to stop performing at 28 and died at 42. BTW 100s of 1000s of rappers who are over 30 are still alive. 1960s and 1970s several young rock and roll stars died but 1000s and 1000s lived. For proof just watch any years induction ceremony at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. MarnetteD|Talk 22:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While it is certainly true that there is a notable correlation between the top performing artists and shorter lifespan, there are too many factors at work to point to one single cause. It may be, for example, that some artists go into the creative arts driven by an emotionally turbulent childhood, broken homes, underlying mental illnesses, and a propensity towards self-medication with alcohol and drugs, all of which feeds back into their creative process and directly, perhaps making them even more vulnerable to abusive control by music industry representatives, and subject to increasing interpersonal instability in their relationships, both personal and business-related. Further, we know that the popular music industry has a historical relationship with organized crime of one kind or another, and that entertainers in general tend to be socially isolated for reasons of safety and control. Add to that the nature of violent "beefs" and manufactured outrage and controversy, and you get a ticking time bomb waiting to go off. At the end of the day, being a popular entertainer is often directly opposed to having a safe and healthy lifestyle, so the limited longevity of artists at the top isn't that surprising. Viriditas (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but did you mean "isn't that surprising"? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. One of the hazards of posting from a cell phone. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That point was made before:

...It could be argued that the mortality is related to "class", rather than music. - 92.8.151.169 21:03, 2 June 2021

MarnetteD didn't pick up all the errors: The Jackie died at 37, Young Greatness at 34 and 3-2 at 44. Hence the reference to Jacqueline du Pré I guess. 77.102.184.207 (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish curricula[edit]

Greetings,

@ Draft:Avret Esir Pazarları (The draft under development specially focused on Ottoman times state of non-elite common women slavery) section Coverage of (female) slavery in modern Turkish textbooks Up til now we could get reference of Avarogullari's paper online but other experienced English Wikipedia users suggest to include more referenced content, preferably references from properly peer reviewed credible journals.

Dr. Eray Alaca seems to be authority on studies in Turkish history textbooks, but writings referred by him are likely to be in Turkish. Can some one with knowledge of Turkish help out section Coverage of (female) slavery in modern Turkish textbooks.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 16:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Grover Cleveland's narrow New York victory margin in 1884[edit]

Why did Grover Cleveland win New York by such a narrow margin in 1884? Between 1882 and 1891, Democrats won almost every single statewide election in New York, and they always or almost always did so by significantly larger margins than the 0.10% (slightly over 1,000 votes) that Grover Cleveland defeated James G. Blaine in New York by in 1884. 68.228.73.154 (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tammany Hall hated him. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) This article 1884 United States presidential election in New York mentions that the Tammany Hall political machine set itself against Cleveland and that will have been at least part of the reason for the narrow margin. MarnetteD|Talk 22:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did Tammany Hall actually prefer Blaine, though? 68.228.73.154 (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They would have preferred anyone to Cleveland. As noted in his article, much of his time as Governor of New York was spent fighting Tammany Hall; as someone from Buffalo, he was seen as an outsider messing around in New York City politics, and that was something they couldn't stand for. --Jayron 32 11:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why was he hurt less by this in 1892, then? He won New York in 1892 by 3%, as opposed to just 0.1% in 1884. 68.228.73.154 (talk) 18:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When was Railroad available from Mexico City area to connect with US border.[edit]

Resolved

When did railroads exist which would connect Railroads from Mexico City to the US border? Also, did this connect to the US Railroad network?

(I looking for this info as part of trying to estimate when a railroad from Mexico City to the Salt Lake Valley would be created in an Alternate Timeline where either the Mexican kept Texas or lost the Republic of Texas but didn't have the Mexican American war. (A Mexican Victory in the Mexican American war is just took much)).Naraht (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Naraht, Rail_transport_in_Mexico#History may be useful. It mentions construction of the Mexican Central Railroad to El Paso in the 1880s and Mexican Central Railway gives the exact date: opened in March 1884, along with a mention of connections right away to at El Paso to the Southern Pacific Railroad, Texas and Pacific Railway, and Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, the March 1884 date is *exactly* what I was looking for.Naraht (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the best Bible translation that I should read?[edit]

I usually prefer the NIV, which I feel like is "the Google of Bible translations." However, which Bible translation do you think is the best one to read? Should I opt for one that is more literal or more "plain English"? Thanks! Félix An (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what you mean by "best". The Authorized Version is the most influential, linguistically and culturally, in the Anglosphere. For the psalms go to the Book of Common Prayer. DuncanHill (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like King James for liturgy (it is great poetry) and more modern translations for study. Blueboar (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why must this be 1 or the other? You can try both. You can do both and look at the changes between the 2. For example, there might be cases where the KJV says the earth cannot be moved, and the NIV says the earth cannot be shaken. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 00:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

It depends on a few things such as your faith and your purpose. I am Catholic, and we use the RSV-2CE for study, as it holds to a more formal equivalence style. For the sacred liturgy, we use the NABRE which is a dynamic equivalence.

Are you Catholic? Protestant? Orthodox? Evangelical? Do you read the footnotes? Are you proficient in Greek or Hebrew, or would you like to learn? Do you want to study Sacred Scripture, or have dramatic readings, or a personal Lectio Divina? Elizium23 (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the whole, I have found the New World Translation published by the Watch Tower Society (Jehovah's Witnesses) very true to the literal original text - which may occasionally be detrimental to understanding idioms in the source language that are not preserved by literal translation. (For criticism of this translation, see New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures § Critical review; most of the issues mentioned there, such as translating the NT uses of stauro'*s by "torture stake", do not bother me personally – the evidence for the historical use of a T-shape for such executions is thin.) For a pleasant read, the NIV is much better, but for a critical study, I can recommend consulting these two translations together. --Lambiam 09:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If they put forward the false claim that God's name is "Jehovah", beware. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 10:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, what's 'false' about it? It's just an imperfect transliteration/reconstruction. Elizium23 (talk) 10:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the Hebrew Bible, the consonantal letters YHWH of the Tetragrammaton have the vowel points of "Adonai" inserted in them in order to remind liturgical readers of the text that the written letters YHWH were pronounced out loud as "Adonai". This is a technical device known as "Q're Perpetuum". Unfortunately some Medieval/Renaisance Christians, lacking knowledge of Jewish scribal conventions, interpreted the consonants and vowels together, producing the garbled gibberish form "Yehowah" (or "Jehovah" in Latin). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (2nd. edition) edited by F.L. Cross and E.A. Livingstone (1978) ISBN 0-19-211545-6, p. 1354 explains this as "the bastard word 'Jehovah' obtained by fusing the vowels of the one word with the consonants of the other". AnonMoos (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos, so perhaps it is 'garbled gibberish' but it is not 'false'; it is simply not anything a modern scholar would use as the Name of God. Elizium23 (talk) 11:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is something which has never occurred in Hebrew as preserved by Jews (i.e. a pronunciation never used by Jews), and was created BY MISTAKE by Christians who misunderstood certain Jewish conventions. I'm probably not very typical (since I have a detailed knowledge of some ancient Hebrew topics), but I find it very strange bordering on bizarre to have a blatant mistake in the name of a religious group (as if you named your group "The Church of Jebus Christ")... AnonMoos (talk) 11:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, though, neither is the name "Jesus", a name he would not have recognized had you called him out by it. He would have been known as Yeshua, Yeshu, or Yehoshua (Aramaic, 1st Century AD Hebrew, and Old Testament Hebrew respectively). Jesus is a much more modern rendering of the name, and it takes several games of chinese whispers to get it to the modern name. His name, when transliterated into the Koine Greek that the New Testament was written in is Ἰησοῦς 'Iesous' because of issues with certain linguistic differences between Greek and Aramaic. This moves to Latin as Iesus, and the hard "J" sound probably predated the spelling change (i.e. the pronunciation Jesus predates the invention of J). I'm pretty sure that, at the time, his name would not have been distinct from, say, Joshua of the Old Testament, and the difference is really only preserved in more modern translations (relatively speaking). The names in, say, the original Greek New Testament and the Septuagint would have been the same. --Jayron 32 15:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 -- The English word "Jesus" derives from the late centuries B.C. / 1st century A.D. Hebrew or Aramaic name Yēšūʕ by a series of minimal changes in borrowing (i.e. an adaptation of the form of the name in language A into language B which is as close as practically possible, while taking into account the structural differences between languages A and B), plus legitimate historical sound changes within a particular language which also affected all such sounds in similar contexts (i.e. following Neogrammarian principles). There was simply NO mistake anywhere along this (admittedly complex) linguistic path, in the way that "Jehovah" derives from a mistake of mixing the consonants of one word with the vowels of another word. If you want to see a form of the name "Jesus" with a strange mistake, the Qur'anic form of the name of Jesus ʕīsā has moved the voiced pharyngeal consonant around from the end of the name to the beginning! (Arabic-speaking Christians usually prefer the form Yasūʕ without this unexplained metamorphosis.)

In any case, ancient Hebrew Yēšūʕ ישוע (rendered into modern English in different contexts as "Jeshua" and "Jesus") was a shorter post-Exilic version of the name Yǝhōshūʕ יהושע or "Joshua", and occurs in over 25 Hebrew Bible verses, starting with Ezra 2:2 (and also in the Aramaic-language Bible verse Ezra 5:2). In the Greek texts of the Septuagint, Josephus, New Testament etc., the names Jesus/Jeshua and Joshua all appear as Ιηsους (see Acts 7:45, Hebrews 4:8). AnonMoos (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lambiam -- the New World Translation "a god" in John 1:1 is simply flat out wrong according to just about every respectable non-JW scholar of ancient Greek, and that translation also inserts into the New Testament the bogus form "Jehovah"[sic] which never even occurred in the Hebrew of the Old Testament, much less the Greek of the New... AnonMoos (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So I wrote "most of the issues mentioned there"; some things do bother me, like the inane use of "Jehovah". But I think "a god" is a defensible translation. Note that the unusual absence of an article in Ἐν ἀρχῇ echoes the equally unusual absence seen in בְּרֵאשִׁית‎. After πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, the absence of an article in θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος feels significant. John 1:1 in English versions mentions at least some non-JW scholars and scholarly translations that are in agreement, and I think they are respectable enough. --Lambiam 23:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the detailed knowledge to debate this personally (what I do know applies more to epic Homeric Greek than to New Testament Greek), but I still think that minimally defensible is quite different from realistically plausible. AnonMoos (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid the NIV. Its priorities are with the doctrine of its translators, not faithfulness to the texts. I haven't read this article in a while, but their articles are quite good in general: https://isthatinthebible.wordpress.com/articles-and-resources/deliberate-mistranslation-in-the-new-international-version-niv/ A good place to ask your question would be at reddit.com/r/academicbiblical. Temerarius (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing. Last NIV I read, said the authors who translated, were not any specific Christian denomination. If I recall, they were from multiple faith denominations. So their specialty was being fluent in the 2 languages. Now, whether or not any of the translators were non-believers, is something I wonder, and if so, I doubt if they would ever admit that. Any if all the NIV translators were of a particular denomination, 1 could argue bias in the translation. As far as I know, most pastors prefer studying the King James version, even if they themselves preach using the NIV version. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Blueboar, I asked a biblical scholar whose opinion I trust, and he recommends the Holman Christian Standard Bible and the New Revised Standard Edition. Temerarius (talk) 05:21, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at New International Version, the translators were exclusively from the evangelical Christianity tradition, and were NOT from a broad range of other Christian traditions, even within Protestantism. This is not a criticism from outside, this is directly from the NIV itself, see their own website: In 1965, a cross-denominational gathering of evangelical scholars...one year later, their decision was endorsed by a gathering of 80 evangelical ministry leaders and scholars (bold mine). The NIV was translated specifically to adhere to a particular strain of Christianity, and when translation decisions had to be made where the text seemed to conflict with their existing theology, they went with their theology over the original languages in many cases. Rather notably, they harmonized the double creation narrative in Genesis (that is, the first creation story in Genesis 1:1 - 2:3 and the second creation story, with a different chronology that begins at Genesis 2:4) by introducing verb tenses in the second narrative that do not exist in the original languages. This makes it appear in the NIV that the second story is referring back to events already mentioned in the first one; whereas in the original languages that meaning is unambiguously wrong. There are lots of other problems with the NIV that pop up all the time where the original languages are in conflict with some standard point of Evangelical theology, and they bend the text to fit their narrative. It's really not great for those reasons. As noted above, both the Holman Christian Standard Bible and the New Revised Standard Version are much better translations; they work harder to maintain the original language's usage and meaning, and they were written by a much wider swath of scholars from a wider breadth of Christianity. The NRSV in particular was written under the aegis of the National Council of Churches, which has membership from just about every significant branch of Christianity, including Catholic, Orthodox, mainline Protestant, and evangelical. --Jayron 32 14:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be confused by the modern American Evangelicals who associate with the Trump movement. Evangelical is a ill-defined term for a vague grouping. From the Preface to the the NIV: "The fact that participants from the United States, Great Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand worked together gave the project its international scope. That they were from many denominations—including Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethren, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other churches—helped to safeguard the translation from sectarian bias." [2] Rmhermen (talk) 22:09, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any translations by non-Christians? A translation by exclusively Christians seems to me to be just as suspect in its own way as ones by exclusively Evangelicals, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Jehovals, or whatever, are in theirs? DuncanHill (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DuncanHill, suspect? A translation of a Christian book by a non-believer is worthless. I would say any non-Christian Bible translation would be the suspect ones. Elizium23 (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Elizium23: "A translation of a Christian book by a non-believer is worthless" - on what grounds? Would you say the same about Jewish, Hindu, Moslem, etc, books? Does this extend to Apocrypha or Commentaries, or is it confined to Canonical works, and who decides what is canonical or who is a believer? Are translations by Christians of works about disbelief equally worthless to you? DuncanHill (talk) 14:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, more or less, yes. Why would a Christian translate the Quran? Elizium23 (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't they? DuncanHill (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhoo, Elizium is, of course, way off base here: One's belief in a particular religion has no effect (in one way or the other) with one's ability to translate text from one language to another. this thread from Stack Exchange seems to answer Duncan's question sufficiently. That thread indicates that the Society of Biblical Literature, a secular organization with no religious connections whatsoever (no idea on the individual conscience of any singular members they may have; they may or may not believe in any religion themselves) has a translation. There are also other options mentioned in that thread. --Jayron 32 15:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Jayron32:, that looks helpful. DuncanHill (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Living Torah and Nach or the Leeser Bible were translated by non-Christians, e.g. See also Jewish English Bible translations. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sluzzelin, Jewish translations of the Hebrew Scriptures are all well and good, but given the Christian understanding of typology shared between the Testaments, it stands to reason that translations by Christians are the translations par excellence. Elizium23 (talk) 14:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given the what now? Bible translators with an ideological bent have been an impediment to biblical literacy and scholarship among non-academics since... probably the Vulgate. A lotta Phaetons who seem to think that it wasn't quite divinely inspired enough to translate honestly. Anyway and by the way, there's a translation in progress of Wikimedia's own here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Bible I haven't read much of it, but the parts I read I thought were good. Temerarius (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's very similar to concerns over Cultural appropriation. Anyway, the early Qur'an translations into European languages were necessarily done by Christians, since very few Muslims were fluent in those languages (certainly not in the lofty literary style felt suitable for sacred texts), and many pious Muslims were not too enthusiastic about the idea of Qur'an translation in the first place... AnonMoos (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

side issue

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

— I wrote, “Belief in one superstition or another is irrelevant to the ability to translate among languages. Insisting that such a belief is necessary is simple bigotry.” Elizium23 removed my comment, not once but twice. This is simply not the way we do thing here. DOR (HK) (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizium23 called it a "personal attack", which I don't see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's obvious that you're the bigot here, if you're so hell-bent on forcing in your ridiculous and off-topic opinion to this discussion. Elizium23 (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's one person here trying to censor comments they don't like on religious grounds, and it's not DOR (HK). DuncanHill (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA Elizium23 (talk) 15:31, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's kind of a snippy comment, but it's not a personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:40, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizium, what you're getting into now is not a good look for you. And you don't delete other people's posts around here except under special circumstances. Temerarius (talk) 23:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at his edit history suggests he's abusing the rollback privilege in various places. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:21, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, I suggest that you provide diffs before I decide you are also being incivil about this matter. The way you have misinterpreted policy to accuse me is not a good look for you. Elizium23 (talk) 00:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're flirting with disaster. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, au contraire, I am defending myself against your patently false accusations. I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with WP:PAG before throwing around public accusations. Elizium23 (talk) 01:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You still need to explain how DOR's comment somehow constitutes a "personal" attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the several editors who have spoken out on this issue. We do not, with very rare exceptions, delete other editors' posts in the Reference Desk. Those exceptions are for personal attacks -- which my original post clearly was not -- or what might be termed hate crimes in another context. What we do not tolerate is intolerance for different views. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DOR (HK), intolerance, such as saying "Insisting that such a belief is necessary is simple bigotry."? That seems mighty intolerant to me from where I sit. Elizium23 (talk) 15:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See paradox of tolerance. I believe the section(s) discussing whether it was a personal attack or not can be hatted or moved to the talk page, as they don't really help answer the OP's question. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]