Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 November 1

= November 1 =

Does it have anything to do with WWI?
I heard that the jehovah`s witnesses believe that Satan fell to Earth in the year 1914, I would like to know do they have this belief because of the fact WWI started the same year? And if not what is the basis for it?
 * Do you have a source for that?


 * Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses states, "Watch Tower Society publications teach that Jesus Christ returned invisibly and began to rule in heaven as king in October 1914. They state that the beginning of Christ's heavenly rule would seem worse initially for mankind because it starts with the casting out of Satan from heaven to the earth, which according to Revelation 12, would bring a brief period of "woe" to mankind." In the section Eschatology of Jehovah's Witnesses, it further says, "They claim that various calamities in the modern world constitute proof of these beliefs, such as the outbreak of World War I in August 1914, the Spanish flu epidemic in May 1918, the onset of World War II in 1939, the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and, more recently, the COVID-19 pandemic." So 107+ years and counting is a "brief period"? Clarityfiend (talk) 05:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, in Jehovah's Witnesses chronology, August 1914 apparently follows October. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Compared to the thousand-year reign of Christ promised in (see also Millennialism), it is still relatively short, but that angel from heaven  had better hurry up casting Satan into the bottomless pit, and shutting him up, and setting a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled.  --Lambiam 09:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Let's not forget all the times he killed Kenny, the bastard! Clarityfiend (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * 96.250.241.6 -- The apocalyptic prophecy was originally made before 1914 (before WW1 was known about), based on calculations of numbers from the Book of Daniel and/or pyramidology. The outbreak of WW1 was seized upon as a post facto justification for the prophecy.  See also When Prophecy Fails... AnonMoos (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Specifically, the 1914 prediction was made in The Time is at Hand written by Charles Taze Russell in 1889, the second volume of a work that would later be called Studies in the Scriptures. In it, he claimed that it was "an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished at the end of A.D. 1914". When nothing happened, Russell said that the end would come in 1915 and later 1918. After Russell's death in 1916, editions of Studies were rewritten to suggest that 1914 was the beginning of the end rather than a final date, and that the Great War was a manifestation of that process. See Unfulfilled Watch Tower Society predictions. Alansplodge (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If he died in 1916, how did he predict anything in 1918? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * He said, before died, that the end of the world would be in 1918. He did not make the statement in 1918, he made the statement about 1918.  -- Jayron 32 17:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

What term describes the idea that protests, riots, etc are always caused by outsiders?
It is commonly asserted, when something like a riot or protest occurs, that most of the participants are outsiders who came from elsewhere (usually a big city within driving distance), and that they drove in just to make trouble in a peaceful community. The idea is that "our people don't do this kind of thing." This idea has been used to delegitimize protests like the George Floyd Protests. A related idea is that organizations and popular movements are actually spearheaded by foreign actors, for instance during the 1950s and 60s there were claims that African-American rights groups in the American South were front groups organized by the Soviets. I'm almost positive that there's an article on Wikipedia about this concept, but I can't remember the name of it, and my search efforts have turned up nothing. I am not looking for the concept of agent provocateur. What I'm looking for is the popular notion that protests/movements/disturbances are always caused by sinister outsiders, rather than members of one's own community who might have a grievance. Lantzy : Lantzy 01:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, of course it's a manifestation of xenophobia. But that's not very specific. --184.145.50.17 (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Outside agitators is the term I remember from the late 1960s. I first attended a protest event a couple of days after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated a couple of weeks after I turned 16 and got a driver's license. Sadly, that article is poorly developed but I am confident that some ambitious editor would easily be able to expand and improve it. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * A Google Books search shows that the term "outside agitator" goes back about 100 years, and was used back then mostly in connection with the labor union movement, but by the mid 1960s, it was applied mostly to the civil rights movement. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Outside agitators is definitely the article I'm thinking of, although I remembered it being a much more detailed and lengthy article. Thanks! Lantzy : Lantzy 18:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * One darkly humorous example is when Byron De La Beckwith murdered Medgar Evers, the local paper's headline read "Californian is charged with murder of Evers". Never mind that he had moved to Mississippi with family when he was like 6 years old. But the Jackson newspaper wanted to deflect some of the blame. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * "This idea has been used to delegitimize protests like the George Floyd Protests." Is that accurate? My impression was that the people trying to delegitimize them were the ones saying "You rioted, therefore you are bad and should be ignored", while its the defenders of the protests that were saying "That wasn't us, we were just protesting, it was outsiders that were rioting". Iapetus (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that people were saying that. There were a lot of different responses to the protests, and counter-responses to the responses. But I distinctly remember a lot of talk about "Chicagoans driving up and making trouble in Minneapolis", so this trope was definitely invoked. Lantzy : Lantzy 18:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The term rent-a-mob is often used in the UK to describe people who are allegedly paid to boost the numbers and cause trouble at demonstrations etc. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 21:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Employees: Working for employer's subsidiary, or working for employer's parent?
Let's say there is a parent company X Ltd, and it has a subsidiary Y Ltd. One of these companies hires a member of staff to do work for both legal entities, supporting entity Y's work more, but of course Y is a subsidiary of X so it benefits X too. The question is, which company is most likely to make the hire.

As in, is it more likely that X makes the hire and uses it's employee to help it's asset, Y Ltd, because benefitting its asset clearly benefits itself too. Or is it more likely that Y makes the hire and uses its employee to help the parent because the parent is the ultimate beneficiary and has ultimate control.

Ideally I'm looking for sources that say either what is normally done or what is the logical thing to do. Personally, I've worked in both scenarios, so maybe it doesn't matter but I feel like surely one must be the normal or right thing to do. And if it matters, the geography ideally is the UK. And it doesn't matter to me if these are tiny companies or massive companies. Thanks for your wisdom / better google skills than I have 2A00:23C8:4384:F00:10CD:3054:C356:D337 (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I assume the new hire will have a supervisor. If that supervisor is an employee of X, it is more reasonable if X makes the hire, but if they are employed by Y, Y should make the hire. At least, I think that approach is the less likely to create issues. --Lambiam 00:24, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Child of God
In olden times, if a child was a "child of God" did that mean the child was set aside for human sacrifice to the god?Rich (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Some assistance with a time period and/or geography would help, as I'd imagine there may be differences between cultures. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 11:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Our human sacrifice article explains that the idea went out of favour very early on in most places except the Americas. Julius Caesar claims that we Britons were into that sort of thing before he arrived, but we only have his word for it. Alansplodge (talk) 23:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The Americas is not comparable to the Old World during pre-Columbian times in regards to timelines; it is called the "New World" for more reasons than just being "new" to the Europeans. Humans have not been in the New World for as long as they have been in the Old. Civilisation happened at a later time in the New World than it did in the Old World. When the Europeans discovered the New World at the beginning of what we call the "Modern Period", the civilisations of the New World were a development level that was about equivalent of the Old World Neolithic, or "New Stone Age". So it's not really fair to treat the Americas as being the exception for human sacrifice not falling out of favour like it did by the Iron Age in the Old World; the Americas never got a chance to reach their own Bronze or Iron Ages, and "Stone Age" is not even used at all for New World archaeology for that reason, it would be superfluous. 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:5010:5C21:EA43:B649 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:31, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Point taken, but no censure was intended, merely pointing out the fact. Alansplodge (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've always understood it in the following context. https://www.chapelhillkids.org/post/child-like-faith 41.165.67.114 (talk) 07:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The normal meaning of this phrase refers to our relationship with God . 2A00:23C4:7996:B900:2404:59F7:FAC5:EFB2 (talk) 08:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Instead of us speculating about what you mean,, could you tell us more specifically what you are asking about? --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 11:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you'll drop the sarcasm, Dweller, I'll tell you more about what i mean.I heard a christian friend talk about being a child of God, and the friend clearly thought of that as a good thing. Somewhere else I read or heard of some children in ancient Canaan as being "set aside for god" or words roughly to that effect, meaning that they were to either be sacrificed or at least passed thru flames(not sure if the passing through flames was to be fatal or painful or just ceremonial). Child of god and set aside for god are different phrases, and they have been translated, but I still wonder if they mean the same thing, set aside for a sacrifice to a god. My thinking about it was stimulated by reading that Jeremiah protested that God abhorred child sacrifice.Rich (talk) 03:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies for any offence given - I didn't intend to be sarcastic, I was just baffled. I think you might be referring to Moloch. I've personally never heard that referred to as a "child of God" though. But you're right, several prophets rail against human sacrifice, whether Moloch was or wasn't a child sacrifice cult. --Dweller (talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 09:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry Dweller, I clearly took that in the wrong spirit. Thanks for your answer.Rich (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know what your friend was referring to but as mentioned above by 2A00:23C4:7996:B900:2404:59F7:FAC5:EFB2 from a Christian PoV being a child of god relates to our relationship with god. Either everyone is a child of god (but some for various reasons like the 'right' things they do or whether they are baptised are more 'favoured') or only those who are doing the 'right' things (from their Christian PoV) are god's children. Either way it's something to be happy about although because of it you are supposed to be certain things. It doesn't relate to child sacrifice nor the age of the person, indeed for nearly all modern Christians, child sacrifice is one of those things you shouldn't be doing as a child of god. See e.g. these links for various perspectives [//www.christianity.com/wiki/salvation/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-child-of-god-as-an-adult.html] [//www.first15.org/04/14/being-the-child-of-god/] [//www.catholic.com/qa/who-is-a-child-of-god] [//www.catholic.org/lent/story.php?id=67611] [//www.stlukesvermont.org.au/how-to-be-sure/how-to-be-a-child-of-god_538s347] [//www.granpres.org/sermons/2017/1/9/child-of-god] [//www.presbyterianmission.org/wp-content/uploads/catechism1.pdf] [//www.gracetidings.org/not-everyone-is-a-child-of-god/] [//www.gracetidings.org/not-everyone-is-a-child-of-god/] Nil Einne (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2021 (UTC)


 * OED has "A person considered as belonging to God, either by creation, or by regeneration or adoption". My grandmother (URC) would say "we are all God's children" or suchlike when talking of our common humanity, regardless of faith. The 1549 Book of Common Prayer of course has the question and answer "Question. Who gave you this name?   Aunswere. My Godfathers and Godmothers in my Baptisme, wherein I was made a member of Christe, the childe of God, and inheritour of the kingdome of heaven". DuncanHill (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I should say it's in the 1662 as well, but the spelling isn't as enjoyable. DuncanHill (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Idiomatic translation from German to English
Hi Folks!!, could somebody please translate this from German to English. Thanks.

„Wir müssen endlich Schluß machen mit dem alten deutschen Irrglauben, der Staat sei ein höheres Wesen, dem man sich blind anvertrauen dürfe.“

„Die Wahrheit über die wirkliche Lage muß ins Volk dringen […] Wir fordern die Wiederherstellung der Überzeugungsfreiheit. Ein Volksgericht für diejenigen, die uns in den Wahnsinn des Rußlandfeldzuges und damit des Zweifrontenkrieges gehetzt haben…Wendet euch gegen die Fortsetzung eines Krieges, der im besten Falle nicht Deutschland allein, sondern den ganzen Kontinent zum Trümmerfeld macht.“

„Morgen gehört uns Deutschland!“

 scope_creep Talk  16:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * "We must finally put an end to the old German fallacy of thinking that the state is some higher being that you could trust blindly."
 * "The truth about the true situation needs to get through to the people […] We demand the restitution of the freedom of opinion. A people's tribunal for those who incited us into the madness of the Russian war and the two-front war […] stand up against the continuation of a war that will, even in the best case, turn not just Germany but the whole continent into ruins."
 * "Tomorrow, Germany will be ours."
 * Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks   scope_creep Talk  21:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Trepper kehrte im Januar 1945 nach Moskau zurück, wurde sofort verhaftet und für zehn Jahre in der Lubjanka inhaftiert.[36] Nach seiner Freilassung schrieb er einen ausführlichen Bericht über seine Tätigkeit während des Krieges. Darin erklärte er:[37]

„Tatsächlich trägt die Verantwortung für die Liquidierung der Berliner Gruppe die Direktion des militärischen Nachrichtendienstes in Moskau und das Zentralkomitee der illegalen Kommunistischen Partei Deutschlands.“


 * Can you do an idiomatic translation of this please.   scope_creep Talk  21:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Trepper returned in January 1945 to Moscow, was immediately arrested and held for ten years in Lubyanka.[36] After his release he wrote an extensive report on his actions during the war. In it, he declared:[37]
 * "The actual responsibility for the liquidation of the Berlin group rests with the management of the military intelligence agency in Moscow and the Central Committee of the illegal Communist Party of Germany."
 * --Lambiam 00:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks folks!! It is getting there. More than half is done.   scope_creep Talk  16:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks folks!! It is getting there. More than half is done.   scope_creep Talk  16:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)