Humanities desk
< May 27	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 29 >

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.

May 28[edit]

"Heil Hitler" to Hitler himself[edit]

I have read that Adolf Hitler wanted people to greet him personally with "Heil, mein Führer" instead of "Heil Hitler", because in the latter case, he would have had to say "Heil Hitler" back, and he did not want to speak of himself in the third person. Why would he have had to do that? Couldn't he just have said what he wanted? JIP | Talk 19:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, would he then have said "Heil, mein Führer" back to them? What's the German expression for "Hail to ME"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, according to what I have read, he wanted to be greeted with "Heil, mein Führer" so he could reply with just "Heil". What I am asking here is that why he couldn't have done that also when greeted with "Heil Hitler". JIP | Talk 22:05, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He could have said that in response to Heil Hitler too. However, maybe calling him "Hitler" to his face would have been kind of impolite. Where did you read about this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:08, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned at the Finnish Wikipedia at the version on 4 December 2008 until the mention of Hitler not wanting to speak of himself in the third person was removed without explanation. JIP | Talk 09:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Germany, would it have been considered impolite for someone to say just "Hitler" to the Führer's face? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would have been considered extremely impolite. At the very least, one should have addressed him by Herr Hitler!. But that too would have been considered insolent or even subversive. Until August 1934, the appropriate form of address was Herr Reichskanzler!. After that, it became Mein Führer!. --Lambiam 18:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suspect that it was because it was illegal to not respond to Heil Hitler with Heil Hitler under the Nazi regime. If he did not respond as such it would have been illegal. 109.151.74.96 (talk) 12:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, no one is going to be the person to tell Hitler that he was breaking the law -- not even Goering.--WaltCip (talk) 12:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but he still wanted to be seen as the ideal German and so breaking the law would have tarnished his image.109.151.74.96 (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone did. 80.44.94.249 (talk) 14:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And we know what happened to him, along with many of Hitler's other detractors.--WaltCip (talk) 14:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JIP: Here's a RS that says "Hitler himself rarely gave the salute in the stiff-armed manner, and instead only raised his right hand, as if to receive and acknowledge a pledge of allegiance that would have been ridiculous for him to swear to his own person". ——Serial^# 17:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's Bugs Bunny cartoon where Hitler lackadaisically "Heil"'s himself.[1] 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of German word[edit]

Hi Folks. Can somebody who speaks and reads good German, give me a translation of the word "Kapelle". Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 21:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not "Chapel"?[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Baseball Bugs: How are you. I don't think we have spoke before. Do you read and speak German? scope_creep^Talk 22:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nein. But I looked it up in Google Translate, which is always chancy, but Etymology Online was consistent with it. Do you think it means something else in whatever context you saw it in? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, I have editor who think the translation is slightly wrong in the Red Orchestra article. I need somebody to verify all the translation that mention the word, "Chapel", or more specifically, a couple of instances. The translation from "Kapelle" to chapel is not accurate somehow. It is nuanced somehow, at a level I don't understand at the moment. The context is not aligned in one or two parts. I'll get to the bottom of it. I need to find out what they are. I need to identify them. Thanks.scope_creep^Talk 22:16, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the other option Google Translate gives is "band", which seems kind of odd, but maybe it makes sense in the context of that article? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Kapellmeister where it mentions "consisting of the roots Kapelle ("choir", "orchestra" or, originally, "chapel")". MarnetteD|Talk 22:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MarnetteD: So chapel is an older interpretation, which my editor is unhappy with. The conversation with the editor is on my talk page. That editor seems to be worrying about the first sentence which is -- The Red Orchestra (German: Die Rote Kapelle, German: [ˈʁoː.tə kaˈpɛ.lə] ), or the Red Chapel as it was known in Germany. Cursorily, he looked at Kapellmeister and mentioned it as well. I think now, the whole idea of Red Chapel is perhaps too old as a applicable term, and it needs to be taken out. Certainly it is still used on the gbooks, jstor, even t&f, but now its been brought into doubt. scope_creep^Talk 22:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if all the times "chapel" appears in the article it is in a Wikipedia translation of a German source, rather than being from an English language source that has rendered Kapelle as chapel. So I don't see an RS reason for using chapel instead of orchestra.--Wikimedes (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Scope creep: In my recent translation of the Barth quote, I instinctively chose "Red Band" but knew it could also be "Red Orchestra". Did not check to see which name had been used in WP and also added RK in parens for good measure. "Band" is ambiguous because it could also mean "group" or "ribbon" and does not clearly convey "Kapelle" as a music group. I was reminded by Kapelle of the concentration camp orchestras. Jmar67 (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jmar67, your German is much better than mine so I'll defer to you, but it sounds to me like "Chapel" in that article is a mistranslation and it should just say "Orchestra", since the historical resistance movement described in the article is usually known by those names (Rote Kapelle / Red Orchestra). 2601:648:8202:96B0:A598:FF3D:8240:4E2B (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I examined several common Rote Kapelle, English and German books and journals where there was an English translation of the German. I was surprised, or rather not surprised now, it didn't translate. I missed it. The term wasn't there at all. I will take them all out. I also know now, for definite, that I plan to post the quotes up, to get idiomatic translations. Thanks folks. scope_creep^Talk 07:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I did of course briefly consider "chapel" in the Barth translation but quickly rejected it as illogical. Here it has to refer to an organization. Jmar67 (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The EO link illustrates the amusing twists and turns that the word we call "chapel" has taken. From "little cape" to an extension to a church building to the various ways a cappella has been used, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw this I thought "little cape" was a reference to a feature of the coastline, but that is from Latin caput ("head"), hence "headland". 80.44.94.249 (talk) 13:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're all connected.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In this context the term Kapelle has the musical sense of "band, ensemble". In English these translations, as well as the historical term chapel itself, have a connotation of a relatively small group of musicians. In German, however, Kapelle can also refer to a large group, as in various regular orchestras named Staatskapelle, literally "State Chapel". The Gestapo used the name for opposition to the Nazi regime because they thought, or at least claimed, that actions of opposition were orchestrated by Moscow. For these reasons, if the meaning of Rote Kapelle is given in an English translation, Red Orchestra is (IMO) the more faithful translation. --Lambiam 15:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Me, I'd go with "Red Band", in the absence of a convincing RS. de:Musikkapelle is useful in discussing the history of the word as applied to musical ensembles; the connotation and thus the selection of translation will depend entirely on what era "Kapelle" is being used. Seit dem 19. Jahrhundert wird der Begriff im deutschsprachigen Raum allgemein für die Musiker eines Orchesters gebraucht (vgl. heute den Begriff Staatskapelle), gleichzeitig erfolgte aber auch eine gewisse Abwertung; heute ist oft ein kleineres Musikensemble gemeint... Paraphrasing: since the 19th century the term has been used for the musicians in an orchestra, but the term has been devalued; now it often means a small band..." --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon, the context was the Karl Barth quote from further up[4] and it referred to the Communist opponents of the Nazi regime who in German were called the Rote Kapelle. In English this faction has always been called the Red Orchestra as far as I'm aware.[5][6][7][8][9] I'd be surprised if there are English-language RS calling it anything else. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:6543 (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to notice that the article Красная капелла on the Russian Wikipedia begins with «Кра́сная капе́лла» (нем. Rote Kapelle, более точный перевод - "Красный оркестр") – in translation: "The 'Red Chapel' (German Rote Kapelle, more accurate translation – 'Red Orchestra')". --Lambiam 13:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How Does Wikipedia Determine which States are Countries?[edit]

There are multiple ways territories can be classified on Wikipedia, I will list a few as an example:

1. Country 2. State 3. Sovereign State 4. Province 5. Special Administrative Region

How does Wikipedia determine which territories are classified as countries? This is contentious in some situations. Here are a few examples:

1. Vatican City State 2. State of Palestine 3. Somaliland 4. Kosovo 5. Republic of China (Taiwan) 6. Northern Ireland

I'm sure there must be a way to come to a decision on territories that are controversial, how does Wikipedia go about deciding this? What are the criteria?

Greenfish77 (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, Wikipedia doesn't decide anything, it reports what Reliable sources say, and if such sources disagree and even contradict one another, it is supposed to describe their disagreements and contradictions. The real world, particularly where humans are involved, is often messy, and it is not Wikipedia's job to devise and impose its own order on that messiness. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.25.54 (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Greenfish77! Great question! In the article we have on List of states with limited recognition, it explains the criteria that are considered on that topic. I hope that helps. Bkissin (talk) 15:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The most notable part of this discussion is determining how to classify each of Greenland, European Denmark, and the Danish Realm. Which of the above 5 descriptions mentioned here goes with each of these?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greenland is an autonomous territory of Denmark. Unlike something like the Kingdom of the Netherlands, under which multiple autonomous parts are co-equal parts of the whole, Greenland is not a "co-equal" part of the Danish Realm to other parts, it is a mostly autonomous, but still sub-national, part of Denmark. There is no "European Denmark" that is on equal footing with Greenland in the same way that "European Netherlands" is on the same footing as Aruba is within the Kingdom of the Netherlands. --Jayron 32 06:29, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to answer on a few of the above, 1) Vatican City is uncontroversially considered a sovereign state by nearly every reliable source. It's an undoubtedly weird sovereign state, as it only barely has a territory and only barely has a population, but nearly every reliable source still considers it an honest-to-God-sovereign state. 6) Northern Ireland is contrawise, nearly universally recognized, especially since the Good Friday Agreement, as a part of the United Kingdom, which makes it not a sovereign state in any meaningful sense at all. It's not even a dependent territory, or non-self-governing territory, or any of that mess, it's an honest-to-God-for-real part of the United Kingdom, bound by its laws and electing representives to Parliament. The UK itself has some complicated terminology (it is sometimes called a "country of countries") but fitting it into the model of statehood we're working from here, Northern Ireland is an integral part of it, and in no way a "sovereign state". The four in the middle are rather more complicated and messy, and really each for different reasons. You have on your list everything from "basically acts like a fully sovereign state, and where almost everyone interacts with it as though it were a fully sovereign state, though we have to maintain the language of 'no, OK, fine, it isn't a sovereign state' for not-pissing-off-important-people reasons", to "the thing we recognize as the putative 'state' in charge of this 'land' doesn't exist in any functional way, and other groups have developed over part of that land to provide some semblance of local security and governance" sort of thing, and all sorts of other situations that historical complications have prevented from the preponderance of Earth from saying "Yeah, you're a sovereign state". --Jayron 32 06:13, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology of the British Isles goes into great detail about the nomenclatural complexities of ... that part of the world. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:23, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]