Template:Did you know nominations/May God have mercy upon your soul


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

May God have mercy upon your soul

 * ... that when passing a death sentence in England, judges would say "May God have mercy upon your soul" because they felt that they didn't have authority to destroy souls and that only God did?


 * Reviewed: Jeremy Dudziak

Created by The C of E (talk). Self-nominated at 11:15, 2 April 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg New enough, long enough. AGF on published source and QPQ done. However, the hook starts in the past tense and ends in the present. On the understanding that its formal use is in the UK, where the death penalty is abolished, should it all be in the past tense? Or if we include its unofficial use in the USA, should it all be written in the present tense?
 * I have made the change.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:26, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Looking good. Assume good faith and good to go &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 08:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Symbol possible vote.svg I'm afraid I need to step in to cancel the approval. The hook's assertion, while interesting and plausible, seems to be sourced to an 86-page ebook. Something like this needs high-quality, scholarly source, something like the Rogers cite, which for some reason isn't used for this, which worries me -- if it's true, why doesn't Rogers say it? EEng (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2015 (UTC) P.S. Beyond that, we can't say that judges said such-and-such because of what they thought (which we cannot know), but rather "to indicate" something or "in deference" to God, or whatever.
 * Are you sure you've got the right source? The claim in the article is sourced to source 5 which is a book about law and religion by Clarence Darrow, the defense attorney in the Scopes Trial. I'm fairly sure that that would be considered a high quality scholarly source.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:12, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, you're right -- I was looking at the (similar) statement "The phrase originated in Beth din courts in the Kingdom of Israel as a way to attribute God as the highest authority in law". Nonetheless, with all respect to Darrow (and I mean that) he was far from a scholar or historian. This sounds like something he might have said to the Loeb-Leopold jury, not the fruit of long hours comparing the Dead Sea Scrolls to the Commentaries of Maimonedes (which would have been difficult anyway since the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered after he dies). Can you quote what this source (Darrow himself, I guess) says, and does it cite anything? If we can't find a better source for this flat statement, the hook can always say, "...that legendary American defense attorney Clarence Darrow said that when imposing a sentence of death, judges intone etc etc etc", which might be a better hook anyway. EEng (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Might be a bit POV to call Darrow "legendary". From the source, "In the pronouncement of the death penalty now, the judge adds "May God have mercy on your soul". Probably this is true, because the judge does not know how to destroy the victim's soul himself and the lawmakers, as a rule, consider this beyond their jurisdiction." Obviously if the lawmakers can't make a law regarding souls, then neither can a judge have the authority to destroy them for he has no law to enforce. I suspect that, at least in Christian context, it comes from James 4:12 and Matthew 10:28 where it says only God has the authority to destroy souls. There is another source I have found by Jean Calvin which I have added to the article.  The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 17:44, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I very much want to save this but it's gonna take some work. First of all, Hunsuck isn't a reliable source for anything -- he's just some evangelist with a self-published book. Everything cited to him is going to have to be switched to for now. Calvin and Darrow have legitimacy in their spheres of activity (theology and the practice of American criminal law), and could be used in the hook as quote-sources ("according to John Calvin", "according to "Clarence Darrow"). But to say flatly that the phrase means this or that, or was used for this or that reason, will take a modern, scholarly, completely comprehensive source on English law back to ... I don't know, William the Conqueror or something -- and the answer for something this old is unlikely to be simple. This won't be easy for such a common phrase -- which BTW seems was used a lot outside the judicial context, which means we may never find a specific judicial origin for it at all. Can you put on your thinking cap and see what other sources you can come up with? EEng (talk) 17:29, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Darrow was considered one of the greatest scholars of jurisprudence, which is really what this phrase is connected to, in history. I think the fact that he as well as another expert in another field in Calvin at different times in history both came to the same answer as to the meaning of the phrase is sufficient for scholarly sources. either one on their own would not but together the concurrence to me suggests that this is the scholarly correct meaning of it. I have added another source but if you disagree I'll reword it.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 19:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You do know that I'm not the Chief All-Powerful DYK Approval Guy, right? But I appreciate your respecting my opinion on this, and I'm quite certain none of the sources now in the article is enough for a flat statement of the phrase's true origin and meaning. Darrow was a great lawyer and civil rights/labor advocate, but he was no kind of scholar (of jurisprudence or anything else). And Calvin was a zealot who interpreted things according to his own lights. But let me suggest this:
 * ALT1 ... that Clarence Darrow said that death sentences include "May God have mercy upon your soul" because the judge "does not know how to destroy the victim's soul himself"?
 * ALT2 ... that Clarence Darrow said death sentences include "May God have mercy upon your soul" because even lawmakers consider destroying souls "beyond their jurisdiction"?
 * See, once you look closely at what Darrow wrote it's clear he's not at all pretending to give the "real answer" -- he making a commentary on judicial and legislative arrogance or indifference. And that makes a pretty good hook. EEng (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why did you cancel the original approval then? Anyway, if we have to have an alt, I wpould prefer to have something similar to the original and maybe focus on Calvin too.
 * ALT3... that according to John Calvin, judges would say when passing a death sentence "May God have mercy upon your soul" because they felt they didn't have authority to destroy souls and that only God did?  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 20:23, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I cancelled the approval of ALT0 because it states, as straight fact, that the meaning of the phrase is [etc etc etc], and none of the sources we have are in a position to say that. What's the full quote from Calvin? (I couldn't find it -- too many editions.) EEng (talk) 22:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Its in two parts. "HE who has authority over the soul is the arbiter of life and death ..... It follows therefore that God ougt to be acknowledged as the only king of souls who alone has the power to save and to destroy or in the language of Isaiah as King, judge, legislator and saviour." and "it is not lawful to transfer to man what God appropriates solely to himself."   The C of E  God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 08:12, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Where's the bit about judges and death sentences? EEng (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Very eell, I'll use Darrow in the hook as it is more obvious in the sources.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 11:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ALT4... that Clarence Darrow claimed judges would say, when passing a death sentence, "May God have mercy upon your soul" because they felt they didn't have authority to destroy souls and that only God did?

Look, I'm not trying to be difficult, but your quote from Darrow (hope you don't mind -- I've bolded it in your post) doesn't say anything about God -- he was, famously, an agnostic -- and we can't just interpolate that into what he said. EEng (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But it is in the other sources.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 17:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's not in the other sources that Darrow said anything about God, yet you're sticking it in the hook anyway. You keep borrowing things from a source talking about A and making it seem like the source said it about B., can you help us out here?
 * Beyond the need to find a hook that actually follows the source(s), there are still serious problems in the article itself with non-RS at least, and probably SYNTH. Again, I think this is a really interesting subject but we can't be importing our personal beliefs, beautiful and inspiring though they may be, into the article and the hook. EEng (talk) 18:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * In the absence of, I'll propose this hook which should be acceptable as it doesn't mention the power of God over souls.
 * ALT5... that Clarence Darrow claimed judges would say, when passing a death sentence, "May God have mercy upon your soul" because they felt they didn't have the authority to destroy souls?
 *  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 09:15, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote 4.svg I think that's fine. I've struck all the others -- hope that's OK with you. We now have to face some problems in the article itself. For reasons explained above I've tagged everything cited to Hunsucker as, because I don't believe he can be considered a RS. Also, the statement that "MGHMUYS was often followed by 'Amen is cited to the transcript of a single trial, and that hardly supports what "often" happens. There may be other issues but I'll leave that to the reviewer. (I think we need a new one since the first reviewer seems to have missed a great deal.) EEng (talk) 11:43, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg Okay, let's take this on. First off, the basics are all fine: it is "recently" created and nominated in plenty of time, and more than long enough. The article is predominantly based on offline sources, but there is no evidence of copyvio or close para-phrasing for the online sources. The hook is good, but my only concern is that the article does not specifically state that it is Carrow's claim. Yes, the claim is cited to his book, but the two don't necessarily follow. If you could work the fact that Carrow made this claim (even if saying, "amongst others") then I would be happy with it. Harrias talk 08:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Made the change. Thanks for reviewing and I hope you can grant the green tick now.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 09:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol voting keep.svg Thanks, offline reference, so it's a blue tick of course! Approved ALT5. Harrias talk 09:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Honestly there are still a few things I'd like to see improved, but I can't do it without access to the sources, and DYK isn't supposed to be perfect -- as always I hope that when it appears some reader will be inspired to take the ball and run with it. I'm glad this nom was saved because it's an interesting topic. EEng (talk) 11:43, 25 May 2015 (UTC)