Humanities desk
< July 14	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 16 >

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 15[edit]

Joel Brand's arrest[edit]

I can't believe that Joel Brand is a featured article, considering its atrocious organization. In particular, the section called "Reasons for the arrest" contains no reasons for the arrest. Why did the British want to prevent Joel Brand from going back to Budapest, and why did the Jewish Agency help the British arrest him? What harm could he have possibly done to British, Jewish, or Allied interests? The article gives me the impression that the "blood for goods" plan was quixotic--nobody on the Allied side took it seriously, and it had no chance of succeeding. If that's the case, why did the British care at all what Brand did or where he went? --Bowlhover (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was promoted to Featured status seven years ago (you can see the article milestones at the top of the talk page, just below its archive search box). Over time, FAs tend to degenerate somewhat. If you check the version of the article that was promoted in 2006, there is no section titled "Reasons for the arrest". --Dweller (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The subsection did not exist under that title, no, but most of the content was in the featured version. It contains sourced discussion of the reasons for the negative response to the plan. Those are, in part, speculations by historians, so of course they are arguable. But the fact that you personally don't buy some of those argumants is not a reason why they should not be included. Paul B (talk) 11:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The section is titled "Reasons for the arrest", not "Reasons why the British didn't agree to the plan". Therefore I expected to read about reasons why he was arrested, not reasons why the British didn't buy the plan. I thought I made this clear in the question. --Bowlhover (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's because someone, sometime, decided to create a sub-section heading, probably because s/he though the existing section overlong. It's not a major issue, certainly not evidence of anything "atrocious". Change the title if you can think of a better one. Paul B (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's hardly the only issue. Rather than explaining all the organizational issues, it would be a better use of time for you to read the article yourself, and for me to try to fix the issues. To do that, I want to know why Joel Brand was arrested. That's a major piece of the narrative, and it's missing from the article. --Bowlhover (talk) 09:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it. If you think the article can be improved, improve it. If you want a question answered, ask it. Instead you presented us with a hyperbolic complaint about how "atrocious" something is. It would be a better use of time for you to do something useful instead of complaining about how you are somehow being failed. Paul B (talk) 10:38, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you deliberately being difficult? My complaint consisted of 1 short sentence meant to explain that our article doesn't contain an answer. The rest of my question is, well, a question. In case you still don't understand, after I've said it 3 times, my question is: Why was Joel Brand arrested?

Not only are your posts completely irrelevant to my question, you have the audacity to claim that I'm "complaining that I am somehow being failed" even though I made no such claim, and to imply that I haven't asked a question when I've explicitly stated the question several times. I think it would be a better use of your time to either answer my question or refrain from further comment. In case you still don't understand, I will state my question one final time: Why was Joel Brand arrested? --Bowlhover (talk) 20:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 1944 the British were not likely to have looked forward to the idea of an individual running about all over Europe and the Middle East negotiating with the Nazis. And Britain's policy was not "stop the holocaust" but "defeat the Axis powers" (and thus stop the holocaust). Itsmejudith (talk) 12:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general it seems to have been regarded as a strategem to create suspicion of the Western allies with Stalin. He was already very suspicious. If some sort of negotiation ended with a deal to cooperate with the Nazis and to give them supplies, that would certainly have had the Great Leader apoplectic with paranoia (if that's medically possible). I guess it's also just possible that Himmler might have genuinely believed that the Brits were contolled by "International Jewry", and that the offer would therefore be accepted Real Power behind the Western allies, to save "their" people. Such a deal would also prove to Stalin the Truth about the West. In any case, if Brand were apparently running back and forth between the Brits and the Germans talking up a 'deal', that's the last thing the Brits would want known at this stage in the war. So if the question is " What harm could he have possibly done to British, Jewish, or Allied interests?" The answer, is, potentially massive harm. Paul B (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, thank you. So the British refused to allow Brand to travel back to Budapest, because if the Soviets got wind of the deal even being offered, their suspicions would be raised? In my naive mind, it wouldn't matter what Brand told Eichmann. If he said that the British refused to negotiate, it would be business as usual. If he lied and said a deal was forthcoming, it would go nowhere without official confirmation from the British, and it would be business as usual. But I guess with Soviet suspicions sky high, it would make sense to prevent the Soviets from knowing about the entire plot in any shape or form. --Bowlhover (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Racial/religious/cultural groups in countries[edit]

which countries have three to five main racial/religious/cultural groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.36.181 (talk) 07:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Define "main". Also, the USA has probably members of nearly every ethnic and cultural group you can imagine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if a country only has one, it would subdivide - based on something, anything - so none have one.

If a nation has six or more, then unless there is some stringent policy of political correctness that requires each one to be mentioned in any list, it should be able to say the top five are the "main" ones.

Which leaves countries that are divided strictly in half - maybe Fiji with native Fijians and Indo-Fijians. Perhaps you can think of a few others. The rest will qualify for your answer. Wnt (talk) 15:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is Switzerland, with German, Italian and French Swiss. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bosnia-Herzegovina with Bosniaks, Serbs and Croats. --MF-W 17:55, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see that the IP geolocates to Singapore, which is itself a good example. Sussexonian (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

history of anti-slavery laws and beliefs[edit]

Who were the first known people/culture/nation etc. to outlaw slavery? Or even the first people to teach/preach that it was wrong (not sometimes wrong, but ALWAYS wrong, in and of itself).--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2013 (UTC)t[reply]

We probably can't trace it to the first known people, because at the time of contact with Europeans in Africa, for example, I believe that some peoples had an institution of slavery (The Mali Empire, I believe) and others (some of the peoples who historically lived in present-day Malawi, for example) didn't even really have a concept of slavery because it was just something they just didn't do. If memory serves, a people along the Ivory Coast stood up against the Portuguese because they found the idea of slavery to be very immoral, at least within their own territory. Falconus^{p t c} 18:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In Politics Book I, Aristotle talks about people who oppose slavery on the basis that there is no natural distinction between humans who are free and humans who are slaves. Aristotle concludes that they are partially right and partially wrong—he says that the current institutions of slavery are not strictly based on nature, and so many naturally free people are enslaved wrongly, but he still believes there are some natural slaves who are better off being enslaved. So clearly there was debate about the morality of slavery in Aristotle's time. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 21:17, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know this does not quite answer the question, but the idea that slavery is "unnatural" goes back at least to Roman law. I'm certain they got that idea from the Greeks, but it's probably much older than that. For example, the Institutes of Justinian, one of the codifications of Roman law in the 6th century, says: "...The law of nations is common to the whole human race; for nations have settled certain things for themselves as occasion and the necessities of human life required. For instance, wars arose, and then followed captivity and slavery, which are contrary to the law of nature; for by the law of nature all men from the beginning were born free." So essentially, Roman legal theory recognized that slavery was unnatural, but that was just how things happened among all humans (as far as they knew), so it should at least be regulated by law. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you include prehistoric hunter-gatherer bands who never practiced slavery, never heard about the concept of slavery, and didn't have the economic or social structures that would make slavery desirable? Are you only including societies that had a written law code that forbids slavery explicitly? Are you restricting it to societies that once had slavery, but then decided to outlaw it? --Bowlhover (talk) 00:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I meant forbade it explicitly. Meaning societies that knew about slavery and outlawed it. Doesn't have to be societies that once practiced it. The Roman case is interesting but I'm looking for societies that had laws banning slavery or movements to outlaw slavery. Are you people telling me that proposals to outlaw slavery didn't happen until like the 1700 and 1800s?--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was sort of outlawed in stages in the European world...for example, after the Roman Empire was Christianized, eventually it was illegal for Christians (and Jews) to own Christian slaves. There were proposals to outlaw it entirely in various parts of the world before that, and our articles abolitionism and Abolition of slavery timeline may be helpful. Anyway, at least under Roman law, it was relatively easy to be freed from slavery, so it wasn't like you were necessarily stuck being a slave forever. It was a bad thing that was just part of normal society, so banning it probably didn't really occur to anyone (like, say, banning fast food in our society...not to be glib, but it really was just an ingrained cultural thing). Adam Bishop (talk) 01:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The racist plantation slavery we are familiar with in the Americas was also different from most classical slavery, which was often an alternative to dying in war. Epictetus was a slave. See Slavery in ancient Greece and list of slaves for some hints at the diversity of the phenomenon. μηδείς (talk) 01:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in the history of banning ALL types of slavery, classical or plantation or whatever.--Jerk of Thrones (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apache[edit]

Why did the rapper apache die? --80.161.143.239 (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like that information was ever made public, although there's some speculation about a heart problem. Rojomoke (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is that normal information about why people die are secret, what can the reasons to that be? --80.161.143.239 (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The press is usually interested at the time a person dies. But cause of death is rarely of great interest, and the press will have moved on to new matters, and not follow up. A lot of times the information is available, but no one bothers to publish it. IN this case, Google came right up with this.μηδείς (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on the circumstances around the death, many families of dead people make sure not to inform the public about how a person dies. In many places, that information is never officially released by a hospital or morgue due to privacy reasons. Dismas|^(talk) 19:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every state will have different laws about that kind of thing, but in my experience generally for a recent death, you may have to prove that you're a close relative. For many decades ago, death certificates can be had, sometimes for a fee. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance claim[edit]

I damaged my phone and intend to claim on my household contents insurance policy. Am I entitled to the price of this phone several years ago when it was bought or only the estimated worth of an obsolete, used phone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.159.111 (talk) 22:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but we can't give that sort of advice (even if anybody here knew the answer). Looie496 (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Insurance rules vary widely. The only acceptable answer I can think of would be, "Call your insurance agent." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term you need to check in your policy is whether your phone is insured for "replacement value". More important, the cause of the damage might be relevant. (And I agree with the prior responses: this isn't a topic covered at the Humanities Reference desk.) -- Deborahjay (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Original lyrics of Mozart's canon "Bona nox"[edit]

The unusual spelling "Ox" in the title of Bona nox, which I at first thought to be in error, made me realise that the given lyrics cannot be correct, as they have the usual German spelling "Ochs". However, the NMA and the Köchel catalogue agree in having both "Ox". There are more discrepancies which make me suspect that the cited source is not faithful to the original text, the autograph. Shouldn't the lyrics be quoted from a more reliable and higher-quality source? And where can a faithful copy or at least a version of the lyrics as close to the original phrasing and spelling as possible be found? Are the lyrics found in NMA really the most authentic, philologically accurate? Surely you would expect them to, as the NMA is – according to my understanding – the definitive edition (being a historical-critical edition intended to satisfy the demands of academic experts), and while not always reliably reflecting the available autographs, there is hardly a better collection, though there may be editions of individual works. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your concern. The article says "The original lyrics are probably by Mozart himself; they include the words for "good night" in five different languages (Latin, Italian, French, English, and German)". Now, Bona nox is Latin for Good night. Are you suggesting it should be Bona nochs? What would that mean, and in which language? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasant conversation]} 04:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess Florian is asking about the second line, "Bist a rechta Ox". I'm thinking by "title", "lyrics" was meant. I don't see why you would doubt the NMA and Köchel together. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 19:32, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]