Talk:Second law on the status of Jews

Interesting title situation

The current title, "Second law on the status of Jews" is correct as it stands as a proper abbreviated translation of the name of French law. Nevertheless, we might have to rename this to "Second statute on Jews" even though that is a completely wrong translation. Our naming policy requires us to follow how reliable sources in English do it, and the fact is, that the majority view in secondary sources in English is clear: they mostly say "Statute of Jews" (or 'on' Jews) not "status" of Jews. However, they are all wrong. The French word statut means both "statute" and "status", but probably because the French word looks a lot more like "statute" in English than it does like "status", a whole lot of editors in lots of different English books picked the wrong meaning; maybe the other half of the reason, is because it's a Loi (law), and "statute" is pretty much a synonym for "law". That the majority got it wrong, is kind of obvious from the full name in French:

• Loi du 2 juin 1941 remplaçant la loi du 3 octobre 1940 portant statut des Juifs   – which translates as:
• Law of June 2, 1941 replacing the law of October 3, 1940 on the status of the Jews

Let's see what it looks like, if we translate the French word statut as "statute":

• Law of June 2, 1941 replacing the law of October 3, 1940 on the statute of the Jews

The "law on the statute of the Jews"?? Nuh-uh; makes no sense; it's a pleonasm. The law (Loi, not "statute") is about your citizenship status, whether you have enough grandparents to be defined as "Jewish" and lose your rights, or few enough to still retain your status as "French".

It's unfortunate that this simple, but understandable error got picked up in English sources, and then copied by other sources to the point that it is now the majority. However, that's what happened, and it seems we're stuck with it now. Unless there's some escape-clause in policy somewhere that lets us override article policy on WP:COMMONNAME (I'd hate to invoke WP:IAR, but I guess it's one possibility), I would very, very reluctantly feel obligated to support a change to "statute on Jews" although that is very clearly the wrong translation. I chalk it up to the same problem we have in English with "chaise lounge"; there were battles to keep the correct spelling for some time, but they were eventually lost, and now we are just stuck with "chaise lounge". Tough luck that it's just plain wrong. After a while, "wrong" becomes "right", and it looks like that's where we are now, with the title of this law in English. Pardon me, while I go hurl a technicolor yawn. Mathglot (talk) 08:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot: @Elinruby: @Shakescene: Mathglot I think you you created this article title as a redirect, so I defer to yourself. If it fits the scheme. I don't have a view on it. I didn't know we had to follow the English naming conventions from a suitable secondary source. That is a bit bolshie and weird really. I can't see the reason behind it. Anyway, onto the text of the law. Is it accurate, can it copied to wikisource, is that a thing you would normally do, or does it need to be dumped wholesale? I've not much experience of it and have never seen an English translation of a French decree before in Wikisource, but to be honest it is outside my purview. scope_creep^Talk 13:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

On thinking over @Mathglot's comments on another page (about transferring the translation to Wikisource), I realized that, for me at least, the normal page-pointer does little good.

I'm reading a long, detailed article (no doubt as one of several connected ones), and then the pointer (or template) helpfully tells me that related but usually-unspecified material is in Wikisource: I only rerely go there because crossing Wikis can be a hassle and I don't know what the at-least-distantly-related material is (a recording of Vera Lynn? a picture of Alfred Dreyfus?)

So I'm of two minds about pulling the translation and parking it elsewhere. For one thing, you'd probably want to replace the full translation with a fairly-long English-language paraphrase which is hardly so graphic as the law itself (although, admittedly, the summarizer wouldn't have to cover every little detail of calculating the pensions being granted to laid-off Jewish civil servants).

While Wikipedia is supposed to be a guidebook, rather than a compendium of original materials, I found or felt that I had to copy some fairly long extracts from both sides in United States declaration of war on Germany (1917) just to make the arguments clear and show the motivations of both sides without bias either way. A much shorter direct translation (by me) can be found in the peroration of Why Die for Danzig? On the other hand, I was able to shorten the Ben Wattenberg quotation (not originally planted by me) in Leading members of Social Democrats, USA when a reviewer suggested that it was bordering upon a copyright violation.

More to say (and think), but that's about as much intelligent comment as I can sleepily muster right now.

@Elinruby —— Shakescene (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Shakescene: You don't have to paraphrase in your translation of French law, which is not under copyright; you can include the whole thing, word for word. Mathglot (talk) 09:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

maybe we can have some blockquotes hmm? maybe we don't have to get into the formulae for calculating the pensions of the Jewish civil servants whose employment was terminated by the law, but there is no reason not to quote from the document. Elinruby (talk)

Elinruby (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

apparently late to some interesting discussions: just want to note, in case it is relevant, that statut means "status". Still reading and unsure what's going on exactly. Elinruby (talk) 13:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If that's the case, then then that's how we should translate it regardless of prevailing Reliable Sources. Perhaps a footnote could overcome any difficulty a reader might have in connecting the right meaning to the title wrongly given in other works. And certainly the incorrect title should be there as a Redirect. If necessary, the non-conformist rebel in me says, Ignore All Rules, rather than perpetuate misunderstanding instead of proviing a little enlightenment (enlightenment not being Goebbels' ''Volksaufklärung"). —— Shakescene (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

well, does RS apply to dictionary definitions? Feel free to double-check me. "Statut" = "status", no ambiguity or alternate meanings about it. I take it that this was mistranslated in a source somewhere? It would be an easy mistake to make, but afaik this is simply wrong.

Elinruby (talk) 14:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Shakescene:, this might come as a shock, but per WP:Verifiability, we have to follow the sources, and we cannot substitute our own opinion for what the RS say, regardless of who's right. This means, that in those cases (hopefully extremely few) where reliable sources get something wrong, then the Wikipedia article follows, and gets it wrong, too, reflecting the content of those sources. I don't think we really have a choice in the matter. See the essay WP:NOTTRUTH for further reflections on this. I think in some cases, you might be able to argue that the sources that get it wrong are not of the same quality, therefore, not as reliable as the minority of sources that get it right, or you could argue that later sources trusted the earlier ones' translation and copied the translation from them, in which case the later sources are not WP:INDEPENDENT and can be ignored. My guess is, that that's what happened here, but that's a tough case to prove. I don't see an easy way out of this dilemma. P.S. French statut does have a double meaning (wiktionary gets it right), both "statute" and "status", which is at the root of the confusion of how to translate it in English sources. The sense "statute" or "regulation" has a centuries-long history; the "status" meaning developed later; see sense 4-b at CNRTL. Mathglot (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

One other thought: a move, especially a controversial move as this would be, would require a formal move disussion, and if no one complains about the current title, organizes a discussion, and then achieves consensus to move it to a new title, then it will stay at this title. That's what I'm hoping for. Basically, it's a "don't rock the boat" approach . Mathglot (talk) 18:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Scope creep:, as far as copying the source to Wikisource, they have their own policies and procedures over there. You could start with s:Help:Introduction and s:Help:Adding texts, and then ask questions at the s:Scriptorium, as needed. Mathglot (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

as for the translation, I did not check all of it but what I checked was good. I made a couple of minuscule style edits : "belonging to the" => "of" was one of them. Could easily have done without it Elinruby (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks mostly archaic actually, except possibly in the plural. But I will re-read that slower later. Need to go read that slower later. I'm still not sure what we're discussing here.

The title of a source is wrong? Elinruby (talk) 18:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I'm looking for a signoff on the translation, which seem to be. I plan to move the decree tommorrow to wikisource, if I can. What ref is it? scope_creep^Talk 00:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

sorry to be unclear. I was thinking it was the title of a reference that we were talking about. I think the article title is fine and the article should not be moved, but I understand the policy-based argument. I am just not going to expend effort to make a questionable title happen, but if anyone feels the need to do this, well ok then.~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elinruby (talk • contribs) 02:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe if we all just quietly crawl away, and the last one turns off the lights, no one else will notice and the title will remain the way it is. One can hope, anyway... Mathglot (talk) 09:46, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Notes

Police collaboration in Vichy France

@Shakescene: I intend to expand this article over the coming months. At the moment its a stub. I looked at the French WP and it is pretty rough. I thought it would be a straightforward translate and update but its just listing operations without going into any kind of real detail on the collaboration, so what should have been quick work is now needing a new article written from scratch. So I'm workng on sources at the moment. Its on-going and plan to complete it. scope_creep^Talk 15:47, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Scope creep:, as far as sources for Vichy-related topics, check out template {{Reflib}}, and in particular, the reference library at Reflib/Vichy France. This could make your life easier. If you have new Vichy refs to add to the library for the police-collabo article, please do! See the § Usage section at the Vichy ref library. Mathglot (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

That is a really handy reference!! I see Rajsfus is included writing on the Vichy police. I only found out about that this afternoon. Paxton is missing from it, I see. I got that Robert O. Paxton ref in the Richard Joseph Goslan ref on article page. American historian wrote a whole series of books on Vichy. I'll add that if not on in next couple of days. scope_creep^Talk 18:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I put it together in a hurry; my main focus at the time was French criminal law (and still is). But I can add the two main Paxton books (one with Marrus), and feel free to add your own. If anything is not clear, see if the doc covers it, and if not, please ask, either at Template talk:Reflib if it's something which could be helpful generally, or if very specific, then at my Talk page. Note: the Reflib currently supports only Sfn-style citations, but I plann to add support for inline references and named references at some point. I'm particularly interested in hearing feedback on where the doc is unclear, incomplete, or needs further explanation, that should go on Template talk. Mathglot (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

There's a one-paragraph section at Judicial police (France) § World War II that might have something you can use, at least a reference. Mathglot (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Ascendant

What is this? It isn't typo for descendant. It does seem to be a thing, but I can't find a definition for it Elinruby (talk) 13:20, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it is meant to be descendant but it has been transcribed wrongly by the looks of it. I will see if I can the original on the Gallica archive. scope_creep^Talk 13:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby: Its genuine from the original typed document. It proofread. I think it means child or grandchild of a soldier who died for France. In that context its a noun, "someone from whom you are descended (but usually more remote than a grandparent)", so it looks correct. Designed in a manner to catch as many folk as possible. scope_creep^Talk 13:36, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

oh I believe it is real. I.m finding mentions of mentions of pensions for them. Plus I trust you and I trust French Wikisource to archive a document properly. I am just not sure what it means. Like an ancestor it sound like? Seems weird. Never heard of grandma getting a pension from the VA. Looking some more Elinruby (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The Reference section of this article gives links to both the Yad Vashem transcription, and to the BNF/Gallica photographs of the original pages of the Journal Officiel, followed immediately by the simultaneously-promulgated law on counting Jews and making Jews report themselves as Jews. The only drawback to the latter is that the resolution of those old pages can sometimes be a bit fuzzy. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, the Archives section:

• Also (in French) at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k20323582/f3.item, immediately followed, on page 2476, by No. 2333, the Law of 2 June 1941, Prescribing the Census of Jews, https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k20323582/f4.item

—— Shakescene (talk) 13:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Noted but I am not really questioning the text, just how to translate it. Is it just my weird engvar? I would be my daughter's ascendant? Googling this is hopeless, goes straight to astrology. Also could you guys check that thing about free professions in the last edit summary? I am finding liberal {regulated) and unregulated (free?). Will come back to that.

Or is there an annotated version somewhere? Going to read the rest of the article to see if it explains this Elinruby (talk) 13:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

And look at Yad Vesham Elinruby (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

@Scope creep and Shakescene: neither transcription is annotated, is what I found out. I found a French government website to the effect that I would be entitled to a pension if I were an ascendant of someone who died for France so it is a thing but I thank Scope creep for proofreading to be certain that it isn't a transcription error. I originally flagged it because I too suspected it was supposed to say "descendant". In the same vein "someone who has died for France" is a literal but correct translation. It should *not* read "war veteran" or the like as I was thinking at one point, because people who have died in a terrorist attack are apparently included. This actually makes sense if they were killed for being a French quidam on the street.

Here (for what it's worth) Wiktionary does seem to offer guidance:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ascendant#French

So my guess is that here the meaning would exempt the parents of a war hero [or today, also of a victim of terrorism] — what in the U.S. would be called a Gold Star mother (e.g. the wife of 2016 Democratic National Convention#Khizr Khan ). —— Shakescene (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Aha gold star mother. That helps Elinruby (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok so. Ancestors is too vague. Mother is too specific, and let's not get bogged down in whether an aunt who had raised you would count.

I suggest "survivors of those who had died for France." Elinruby (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely your ancestors in a direct line; see Ascendant³ meaning II. A.. Note: that's the second tab at the top, with superscript '3' on it; antonym: descendant. Mathglot (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

État civil

Speaking of which, I've been toying idly with the idea of making a very rough, very amateur draft translation of the second 2 juin 1941 law about counting and recording Jews, as a starting place for you experts.

But although I know somewhere in the back of my head that état civil has a very specific legal, juridical and constitutional meaning (inter alia, I think, on French ID cards), I've just forgotten what it is. —— Shakescene (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Um legal status maybe? Need context. Pretty sure marriage is a example Elinruby (talk) 14:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I can look into that but eyestrain starting, need break. Will finish source in about two hours.

It's cute that I thought this would take an hour. But if Wikisource is taking translations, I think that's great and am willing to check them. Suggest you guys read up on the civil law system, at least as to differences from common law. I have translated for example natural person in French law, but it is also kind of stiff. Still taking suggestions on what is an ascendant, but don't stress on it; it's probably in a glossary somewhere. I'll look when I come back. Elinruby (talk) Elinruby (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2023 (UTC) <-- this is what happens when you take away the option to edit individual replies in a thread Wikipedia.

Wiktionary is not much help:

Noun

état civil m (plural états civils)

(law, administration) personal data, personal information, personal records; civil status, marital status (law, administration) public records, civil registry (register of births, marriages and deaths) officier de l'état civil ― (please add an English translation of this usage example)

(law, administration) register office

This is one of those things where you'd have to know what état civil means within the corpus of French laws. (Or play it by ear, until someone with better knowledge intervenes).—— Shakescene (talk) 18:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

👍

@Shakescene: many laws are already translated in full, some even by the French government on their website. Others are available in books (in English) about French law. Others, in glossaries. I listed some of these a while back here. By 'French' at that page, I meant the language, so beware of some of those sites which are Canadian, and may not give the right translation in a France French context. The following three books I happen to have out from the library all have bilingual glossaries: Cairns-McKeon-1995, Elliott-2001, and Hodgson-2005, and Cairns has your term on p. 217, listing it as "Civil status register" (but I think it's not only the register but your "civil status" tout court, but you shouldn't take my word for it). Mathglot (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

hmm I think registrar rather than register since "officier" would be a person, non? Usually you see this in a military context (vs. enlisted men). What it conveys to me is the man I dealt with at a mairie once. Given where and when this was, probably my visa was expiring, but I could be wrong about that. If so this would imply that "état civil" means "legal status" in the larger sense Elinruby (talk) Elinruby (talk) 20:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot, Shakescene, and Scope creep: By the way, could somebody verify that this particular law has not already been translated? I like to tell the story of a French friend with a PhD in English who needed my help to buy pastries at a bakery in Stockwell, but to be fair most of the problem had to do with accent and the right names for particular varieties of pastry like cream horns that may not exist in France. On the whole, I think that if the Académie Française or some branch of the French government has produced an official translation of this law, it is probably correct. Possibly they haven't, though; until fairly recently the position of the French government was that it was the Germans who did all the persecuting of Jews. LMK. I am dealing with some RL issues I have been deferring, but will be in and out. I am happy to finish this and it is my top priority at the moment, as long as it is useful. If not I'll go back to trying to sort out Nazi volunteer units. On Canadian vs French French, much depends on context. The two began to diverge ca. 1534 but with notable exceptions the differences are mostly in spoken forms. Think Glaswegian or Texan. Academic Parisian is considered "standard" French (although there is a Cockney-like version of Parisian, and a thieves' argot) in the same way as Oxford is considered "standard" English, but that doesn't mean that this is what Canadians always use. "Le week-end" is considered wrong in Quebec, for example. They are very adamant there about resisting the encroachment of the American airwaves. On the whole I agree that the article is about France, and if there are multiple versions we should go with the one produced in France. Elinruby (talk) 00:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Side-note: I think that although European French is probably as close to its American off-shoot as are European English, Spanish and Portuguese to theirs, any difficulty might arise from different national histories providing different legal systems, legal codes and legal precedents. (For example, while the Napoleonic civil code — by historical accident — is the basis for jurisprudence in Louisiana, and some other states arising from the Louisiana Purchase and the cession of Florida, I think that Québec's legal corpus and traditions might be built on something rather different, as well its meaning of état civil.) It's of course far, far better to check a translation that already exists than to wander blindly from scratch. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

if there is one.

Incidentally the infobox at Law regarding foreign nationals of the Jewish race says it was void ab initio. If this true, it is true of this law also. However, this was for some time the position of the French government, which they may or may not have revised this when they recognized their complicity in the Vel d'Hiv roundup. Just a question I am putting out there. I looked into the Canadian and Quebecois legal systems after noticing while translating Natural person in French law that a river in Quebec had been declared a person.

It's a deep question, but I believe that Canada as a whole moved away from common law after they wrote their own constitution a few years back. The Canadian legal system is probably a hybrid on some level, and as I recall the river was declared a person by a First Nation through which the river flows. But this apparently is being respected. Elinruby (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Not "registrar" (which would be a person), but more like "register" (meaning 1, or 3). État civil, as I understand it, is the "register"—i.e., the collection of files or acts, whether paper or otherwise) that identify your status[es], like your certificates of birth, marriage, kids maybe, death, etc. Try état civil, at:

• Dalloz topic overviews,
• IATE, multiple results
• Europa.eu
• Eurovoc
• Dict. juridique

Already responded about "ascendant" above. Mathglot (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes and probably I am going to rewrite my translation of that in consequence. But I thought we were talking about "officier de l'état civil". No hurry on this discussion, because I don't know that Shakescene has actually started that translation yet. Elinruby (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about that, ER, my immediate question (although I probably shouldn't and won't attempt a draft translation for others to correct or improve if at least one already exists), was the self-reporting requirement in the law immediately following this one: No. 2333 at [1]. " Art. 1^er. Toutes personnes qui sont juives au regard de la loi du 2 juin 1940 ... doivent...remettre...une déclaration écrite indiquant qu'elle sont juives ..., et mentionnant leur état civil, leur situation de famille, leur profession et l'état de leurs biens." In this context, état civil seemed murky to a non-expert non-polyglot like me; it's redundant, for example, in relation to marital status or profession. —— Shakescene (talk) —— Shakescene (talk) 02:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

"situation de famille" would indeed seem to cover whether a person is or is not married, or does or does not have children. Mathglot the Cairns book does not have a preview available at GBooks. I see you have it in your reflib template, so I believe you (and no doubt would anyway) but this needs to be sorted out for purposes of the admin law glossary also. Could I impose on you for a quote? I'm wondering if immigration status comes into it. Thanks Elinruby (talk) 03:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)ied

According to [2] officier d'état civil=town clerk Elinruby (talk) 03:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes absolutely, because it's the town clerk who maintains the register of births and deaths, and in many cases, marriages. Mathglot (talk) 04:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Shakescene:, Afaik, marital status is part of your état civil (e.g., it is recorded in your livret de famille), but your profession is not.

(edit conflict) Elinruby, Cairns-McKeon doesn't list ''état civil in the index (which is non-exhaustive) but is in the glossary (p. 217) and simply has the glossary line:

état civil (m)

civil status register

Afaict, it's not mentioned anywhere in the text, but with the sketchy index, it's hard to be sure. Most of the time when referring to an individual, I would say civil status in English, unless it was clear from context that they were talking about the register itself (whether print version, or digital).

P.S.Looks like the word marr - ied got split up, with half of it at the beginning of a line, and the other half after the timestamp. Mathglot (talk) 04:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC) /

i havent found the wrap problem yet but what if I said: imagine Linux, whether everything is a file. In that context one of the above definitions is an object and the other is a method, no? Sort of? Elinruby (talk) 00:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Every source I can find that renders the sentence in English, uses civil status, for example:

• Jewish Fates on Norman Soil

  After the enactment of the “Second Statute”, people of Jewish faith had to submit a written declaration of their civil status, family status, profession, and property.

• Vichy, State Antisemitism, and the Crémieux Decree

  ...had to provide a written declaration indicating that they were Jews, detailing their civil status, their marital and family status, their profession...

• Jews, Citizenship, and Antisemitism in French Colonial Algeria, 1870-1943, page 322

  There they had to provide a written declaration indicating that they were Jews, detailing their civil status, their marital and family status, their profession, and their property holdings.

• Compare the Monaco law of 1 July 1941, cited in: Expert group responsible for establishing the list of Jewish people in Monaco arrested and deported during the Second World War (pdf download; footnote, page 3)

  Any person residing in the Principality, who is of Jewish origin pursuant to the provisions of Article 2 hereafter, must, before 15 July 1941, submit to the Ministry of State (Ministry of Interior): a written declaration indicating that he/she is Jewish under the terms of this Act, stating his/her civil status, nationality, profession and marital status.

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

¶ Notice that état civil in Article 1 is translated in the link below to marital status: "They must also provide details of their marital status, family situation, occupation, and assets." —— Shakescene (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, already commented below. It's a minority viewpoint, but a valid one given the context. (You could also argue that it's not the best translation; after all, "marital status", and right after it, "family situation", as something different? If the value of the first one is "married", what's the second one: "cheating a bit on the side, and she's getting suspicious"? The two strike me as a bit redundant, and I wouldn't have translated it that way. Then again, I haven't written a 917-page book. ) Mathglot (talk) 06:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I think situation de famille means whether they have children but I don't have a source for it and coild be wrong Elinruby (talk) 15:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Family situation might also (I speculate as a former U.S. Census taker) include other relatives living in one's house, e.g. mothers (in-law), fathers (in-law), grandparents, grandchildren, wards, brothers (in-law), sisters (in-law), aunts, uncles, nieces and nephews. But I only speculate ignorantly; I have no specific idea of the precise 1941 juridical meaning in France of situation de famille. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Source verification requested

The following is pertinent to the exclusion of Jews from the medical profession, and I do recall reading that there where antisemitic resentments prior to WW2 in the medical field in particular, so this is probably DUE. However, leaving this as a note to self and others as I cannot at this moment see the actual article. [3] Elinruby (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby: How are you? What is the specific name of the article? I can perhaps make a request at resource requests to get a copy of it. It should take a couple of days. scope_creep^Talk 13:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

No rush, this is just for later expansion, but: The ordre des medecins and the Jews in Vichy France, 1940–1944 Donna Evleth French History 20 (2), 204-224, 2006

I found it at Oxford Academic at the above link while looking up something else. All I see is the abstract. I am not sure whether or not I am signed into the Wikipedia Library. There is an outstanding and somewhat related question on the talk page about what is a liberal profession, unless you've already answered that. Elinruby (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby: I had a look. I think this can be found out in resource requests fairly easily and quickly. It will make for interesting reading and possibly open a whole new area of research. I've not looked at that subject but I suspect there isn't anything of depth on WP. What is the liberal profession thing? scope_creep^Talk 23:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe there is a discussion of antisemitism in medecine specifically in one of the French history articles, maybe French Third Republic. Article 7 seems just fine, surprisingly, except that I would like to confirm that "alienated capital" is a thing in English. I would also like some discussion about the proper translation of "démarcheur" and maybe some of the other terms in that section. Liberal professions is how we are translating "professions libérales". This seems obvious except the definition of "professions libérales" actually seems to be the *licensed* professions. I think. Versus "unregulated" professions. Pretty sure that translation is confusing, but I'm not sure how to fix it. Elinruby (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You can get a profession liberale status stamped in your (foreign) passport while working in France legally, if you meet certain conditions beyond those required for a normal work permit in France. Normally, if you are a foreigner working in France, you are admitted under a work visa that allows you to work at the one, particular job you were hired for, and is dependent on it. In fact, the employer has to submit the paperwork to the visa office saying that they want you to work for them and have made you an offer, and you have to be out of the country while this is going on, and if the prefecture accepts the employer's request, then you go to a French consulate abroad and get your visa stamped, and then you can then enter the country and work legally at that job. If you lose that one job for whatever reason, or quit, your visa is immediately revoked as it is tied to that one particular employer, and you have a limited time to leave the country. On the other hand, if you get profession liberale status, then you can come and go between jobs, as long as you are exercising the same general profession, without having to leave the country if you quit or get fired. Somewhere, there's a list of which professions are covered under profession liberale, but you don't automatically get it, just because you work in one of those areas, the application still goes to the precfeture, and they still have to approve it. But, if you do get it, you have a whole lot more freedom about your employment situation while in France. No guarantee that it meant the same thing in 1941, of course, but I bet they maintained a list of what professions were included, and the law even lists some that are forbidden to Jews, but don't know if that aligns with profession liberale, or is a separate list. Mathglot (talk) 05:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The démarches are like the paper chase you have to go through to get anything done legally and officially; you can think of it as a series of "steps" (dé-marches, get it?) you have to take, to get where you want to go. Could be "procedures", "steps", "paperwork", "applications", stuff like that. So, the démarcheur is the person going through the démarches, and depending on context, might be "the applicant", the "job seeker", the "visa applicant", the "house buyer", the "insured", or whatever the particular context demands. Mathglot (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Decree status

@Elinruby: @Shakescene: @Mathglot: Afternoon folks. What is the current status of the updates? Do you think it is ready for wikisource? scope_creep^Talk 13:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I would like to go over it one more time. As I recall once past all the definitions the all was well, but. I can be done with it by tomorrow if you need it. Elinruby (talk)

No rush. Its moving forward. scope_creep^Talk 23:34, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Although a last snagging check is well worth doing. scope_creep^Talk 23:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

If you look around, you can find complete translations (copyrighted, of course), such as in chapter "France" in Heim (et al.) 2021: Volume 5 Western and Northern Europe 1940–June 1942 (pdf). That link has only a one-page preview, but De Gruyter is available through TWL here; the download link on that page downloads the entire, 917-page book. The law of 2 June 1941 is translated in its entirety on pages 670–673, headed "Doc. 270 2 June 1941". Not sure if that TWL link will work here directly; if not, go to the TWL page, scroll down to De Gruyter, click 'access collection', search for 'Volume 5 Western and Northern Europe 1940–June 1942', and download it. Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I found them, Documents 270 & 271 on pages 670-675.[4] The registration law's translation (Copyright problem?) reads

Law of 2 June 1941 on the Compulsory Registration of the Jews

We, Marshal of France, Head of the French State, in consultation with the Council of Ministers, decree the following: [Copyrighted content redacted]^{by Mathglot at 05:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)} —— Shakescene (talk) 04:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@Elinruby, Mathglot, and Scopecreep:

Good catch about "marital status"; I wonder if that was influenced by the next sentence, where they talk about the husband making the declaration on behalf of the wife. In any case, it's evidence of it being used for that at least once.

Removed copyrighted content added in rev. 1147151787. Even though this is a Talk page, that doesn't mean we can include it if it's under copyright. It's probably borderline if it needs to be WP:REVDEL'ed, but I'll check with someone who knows more about this than I do. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Soit consideré comme juif

English does not use the verb-initial declarative form "Shall be considered Jewish..." as French does, with Soit consideré comme juif. (You can think of it as containing an elided, understood subject of 'Authorities', 'The Law', 'The State', and so on, so that the passive construction "Soit consideré comme juif..." recast with subject and active voice, becomes: "The State considers a Jew to be anyone who...", and so on.) Even very stiff, formal documents in English don't do it this way. You need to reword it so that there is a subject, even an impersonal one, before the verb. Usually recasting the sentence will do it: "Any person in the following categories are considered Jewish:", or "The following conditions define who is considered Jewish:", "Anyone meeting one of these conditions shall be considered Jewish...", "A person is considered Jewish, if they...", and so on. Mathglot (talk) 01:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

By the way, Heim-2021 (see previous section) has it this way on p. 670: "The following are considered Jews:" followed by the bullet points. Mathglot (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I changed the text's translation to "The following shall be considered Jews:", although no doubt other conversions to English-language style might be as good or better. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Transwikification prep

I notice that people keep working on the translation, and/or spending a lot of time discussing various details of translation of the law. It's not clear to me if this is being done to prepare the translated text section for transwikification, so to formalize that a bit I've tagged the section accordingly, per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. The only translation work that should be done in that section is to make it compatible with the s:Wikisource:Style guide so it can be transwikified. The other option is to remove the translation and turn it into descriptive English prose summarizing its contents, which could be kept here. Mathglot (talk) 07:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Lets move on with moving it across as soon as. @Shakescene: Was that what you were doing was preparing you for transwiki, yesterday when I reverted? scope_creep^Talk 08:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I plan to do this now. scope_creep^Talk 13:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That is it passed proofread for five pages. Its now at the validation stage. I need to validate it, another editor. scope_creep^Talk 16:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot:, @Elinruby:, @Shakescene: It needs a second editor to proofread each of the five pages at "Index:Law of 2 June 1941 replacing the law of 3 October 1940 on the status of Jews.pdf". Can somebody go and do, so it can be progressed. scope_creep^Talk 16:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

About the subtitles: I really like the bracketed subtitles added to each article, e.g., [definition of a Jew], [public offices denied], and so on. Normally, Wikisource just hosts the original (or translation) of a source, and not additions like these, but these additions may be allowed per s:WS:Flexibility; you can try, at least. If they get reverted, the other option is to use template Auxiliary Table of Contents which may be a better approach in either case, as it would be handy to have a ToC for it. Mathglot (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that was one of my main purposes in converting and annotating the individual article numbers — so they would appear in the Table of Contents.—— Shakescene (talk) —— Shakescene (talk) 18:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm also wondering if we're proceeding effectively, wrt Wikisource's procedures or conventions for transwikification, and at what point in the translation process should the content be moved to Wikisource? I've listed this discussion at the s:WS:Scriptorium, for possible guidance. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

(ec) I have no idea what Wikisource does, leaving that up to you guys. driveby comment somebody make sure that the question about alienated capital gets looked at, either here or at Wikisource, please. My understanding is that Scope creep wants to be really sure about the translation before submitting it. I also think we can get a couple of paragraphs of narrative text and maybe a blockquote for the article from the translation, but I am not actually here at the moment ;) at least, I am liable to disappear at any second. Elinruby (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't even thinking of transwikification and, like Elinruby, only dimly aware of its meaning (my theology is a little weak :-) ). But I think I was stumbling because I wasn't clear about where this was going.

1. I was working on the assumption that the (apparently original) translation was still going to be within the body of this article, so annotating the Article numbers would just be (like similar informal titles often given to the bald Article and section numbers of the U.S. Constitution) for guidance; and that since (I think) this translation is by one or more Wikipedia editors, that wouldn't be violating the integrity of an original source.
   But (apparently from Talk Page discussions above that hadn't yet appeared to me to be have reached a fixed consensus), many editors want to move the translation to Wikisource, a transition where subheads present some difficulty, and replace the translated text with a summary.
2. [As I've written before, I personally don't visit Wikisource very often as a reader because the little box (template) that appears on the main article is so vague ("Materials related to this subject may be found..") that I suspect the extra matter (pictures? video?) might peripheral to what I'm seeking information about. And, unlike most prospective readers, I've been working on Wikipedia for over 15 years.]
3. If Wikisource provides a more convenient or aesthetic way of adding subtitles, I'm all for it: I had to wrestle with section-subsection hierarchies to present as clear and clean an appearance on my computer screen as I could, without being able to reduce the parentheticals (as opposed to the actual Article Numbers) to un-bold type as I would have preferred. And of course, things don't always appear the same on others' screens as they do on mine.

[I took a brief break, and didn't intervene sooner, because I imagined that I might be getting into the kind of edit-reversion-citation war that keeps me away from Wikipedia. —— Shakescene (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Shakescene, not sure if I'm reading you correctly, but with respect to this:

...some editors want to move the translation to Wikisource, a transition where subheads present some difficulty, and replace the translated text with a summary

Just to clarify: *if* it is moved to Wikisource, then we will *not* replace the translated text with a summary; we will keep all of it, hosted at Wikisource instead of here. The whole point of Wikisource is to be a source repository, so they keep full sources, not summaries. Otoh, if the section here is kept, then you *will* have to replace the text with a summary, per WP:NOTREPOSITORY. And both could happen: full-translation to Wikisource, *and* replacement of the section here by a summary; in fact, that would be the best outcome, imho. (The subheads are a minor issue, and will probably be dealt with by an AuxToc.) Mathglot (talk) 19:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

@Mathglot Perhaps I should have added clarifying words:

...some editors want to move the translation to Wikisource, a transition where subheads present some difficulty, and replace the translated text on this page with a summary on this page —— Shakescene (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thanks; we're on the same page about this. Mathglot (talk) 20:18, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed that in response to Scope creep's initiative at s:Scriptorium/Help, Wikisource User:Beleg Tâl has kindly created Wikisource:Translation:Second law on the status of Jews for us. Many thanks, Beleg Tâl, for your assistance, as well as other Wikisource users who helped there. Shakescene, this means you (or anyone) can make changes to the translation directly at the Wikisource page now. (Your login is global, and can be used to log in to Wikisource or any other Wikimedia property.) Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. By looking at the original French at [5], I see that it had at least a little indentation, which I don't see in the Wikisource translation. There is nothing, of course, to praise in the substance of the original, but at least it was marginally a little easier to navigate. —— Shakescene (talk) —— Shakescene (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Consensus?

We seem to be misunderstanding each other, which is easy when trying to communicate choppily over a web page rather than more interactively on a telephone or Zoom.

I was expecting that something new, e.g. a summary, would be ready or in place before ripping out about half the article. That was my feeling of the consensus, which isn't apparently the feeling of at least one other editor who takes the opposite approach. I prefer to leave something in place until we can find something better.

Right now, this looks to me like a stub under construction consisting little more than introductory material and a whole bunch of references. (Not only insufficiently informative, but rather boring to boot.) Scholars and lawyers may be used to chasing down a whole string of links and leads, but I'd expect the general reader would want to grasp more of the substance before choosing which links, if any, to pursue.

My suggestions are:

1. Leave the previous (non-copyright) translation (with subheads) in place until we can work out an informative and accurate summary to take its place
2. Add something more useful than the current boilerplate template directing the reader to Wikisource. Right now, it looks exactly the kind of thing I'd pass by (and have passed by) as a reader. Although the editor put "translation" into a line of the template code, all it displays now is "Wikisource has original text related to this article: Second law on the status of Jews".
3. Since nothing stops us from annotating our own collective, uncopyrighted, translation, it should be possible to add the descriptive titles to each article's number and then put the result on Wikisource in place of the current unannotated text.

—— Shakescene (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Shakescene: The translation had to go per consensus. Translations and raw texts are stored in Wikisource not on WP. I had another decree removed at the Union générale des israélites de France and was told that it was WP:UNDUE, so it had to be moved to Wikisource. There was nothing that could be done there, unfortunately. I prepared the document to be exactly like the source. but the annotations were removed by the hosting admin who looked at the article sources and they didn't reflect what is in the source article, so they were removed. If you want to put in more explaining the law, then please do. It certainly doesn't have any kind of historical analysis of why it came into existance. There may be more on it. Please make sure you use full citations. However, I don't know if it worth it. The real explanation and analysis are in these big vichy historical articles. This could be a framework article and more of these laws could go in, and their translations to Wikisource. scope_creep^Talk 08:38, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Shakescene, either per consensus, or per policy (WP:NOTREPOSITORY, bullet #3). There's a lot of text on this talk page, now, so it's easy to miss things. As far as the annotations, as I said somewhere, I like your annotations, but per WikiSource rules (linked someplace above) they can't be kept *within* the text, as we have here, but there's a great solution for that: they *can* be kept in an auxiliary table of contents, which is the perfect place for them and kills two birds with one stone, so your annotations will not be lost. As far as your suggestion #1, we don't get to bend policy just because we want to work out some replacement text first, but otoh I don't think you're going to see any admins swooping in here to slap our hands real soon if we don't. As long as you're clear about what the policy is. Also, what's the difference, really, which one we do first: come up with a summary and then remove the verbatim law text, or vice versa? It's not like the internet is breathing down our necks clamoring for an English copy or summary of the law. Per WP:NODEADLINE, we have all the time in the world to come up with a summary to replace it. Mathglot (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

See the next section, for a non-human approach. Mathglot (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Chat GPT summary

User:Shakescene, you earlier expressed a desire to have a summary of the law here, to replace the text of the law. Summarization is usually something that Chat GPT is very good at, but it was a bit off its game, today. I asked for a summary of the whole law, but it only summarized the first five articles for me. I gave it the entire, original text of the law in thirteen articles (yes, it understands French), and asked for an English summary of around five paragraphs, so maybe it misunderstood me and only summarized the first five articles. You can try it yourself with a better worded question, and maybe it will do the whole thing for you.

Summary of Loi du 2 juin 1941... portant statut des juifs (first 5 articles) by Chat GPT

The Statute established legal definitions of who was considered a Jew and prohibited Jews from participating in a wide range of public life and employment sectors, including the civil service, public administration, and various professions. Article 1 of the Statute defines who is considered a Jew. According to this article, a person is considered a Jew if they have at least three grandparents of Jewish race, or two grandparents if their spouse also has two grandparents of Jewish race. A grandparent who belonged to the Jewish religion is also considered to be of Jewish race. A person who belonged to the Jewish religion or did so on June 25, 1940, and who has two Jewish grandparents, is also considered a Jew. Non-membership of the Jewish religion is established by proving adherence to one of the other religions recognized by the state before the law of December 9, 1905. The disavowal or cancellation of recognition of a child considered Jewish is without effect with respect to the provisions outlined in Article 1. Article 2 of the Statute outlines the functions and public mandates that Jews are prohibited from accessing or performing, including head of state, members of the government, the Council of State, the National Order of the Legion of Honor, the Court of Cassation, the Court of Auditors, the Corps of Mines, the Corps of Bridges and Roads, the General Inspectorate of Finances, the Corps of Aeronautical Engineers, courts of appeal, courts of first instance, justices of the peace, repressive courts in Algeria, all juries, all professional courts, and all assemblies resulting from elections or arbitration. Jews are also prohibited from serving as ambassadors of France, secretaries-general of ministerial departments, directors-general, central administration directors of ministries, agents of the Department of Foreign Affairs, prefects, sub-prefects, secretaries-general of prefectures, general inspectors of administrative services at the Ministry of the Interior, and all grades of officials attached to any police service. Article 3 prohibits Jews from occupying functions or jobs in public administrations or companies benefiting from concessions or subsidies granted by a public body other than those listed in Article 2, unless they meet certain conditions. They must hold the card of the combatant instituted by Article 101 of the law of December 19, 1926, have been cited during the 1939-1940 campaign, and have the right to wear the Croix de Guerre established by the decree of March 28, 1941, be decorated with the Legion of Honor or the Medal for acts of war, be a ward of the nation, or be a parent, spouse, or child of a soldier who died for France. Article 4 of the Statute prohibits Jews from practicing a liberal profession, a commercial, industrial or artisanal profession, or a free profession, holding an office of public or ministerial officer, or being invested with functions devolved to auxiliaries of justice except within limits and conditions that will be set by decrees in the Council of State. Finally, Article 5 of the Statute lists professions that are forbidden to Jews, including banker, money changer, broker in stock or commodity exchanges, advertising agent, real estate or capital loan agent, dealer in business funds or property, broker, operator of forests, concessionaire of games, publisher, editor, manager, administrator, editor, even as a local correspondent, of newspapers or magazines.

Because it only did the first five articles, and not the whole thing, this reads more like a long paraphrase, than a summary to me, so I'm not sure how usable it is, but you could ask it again, requesting briefer output.

Text produced by Chat GPT is not under copyright, so you're free to use it verbatim, if you want, or in any altered form you wish. The only issue is, that LLMs are not perfect, and can (and do) produce errors and inaccurate information, so you need to check the output first, if you want to publish it. If you save it blindly and it turns out to be wildly inaccurate, that's completely on you. As far as attribution, this is all so new, that Wikipedia doesn't have any rules about it yet. There is nothing in policy that says you have to attribute this to Open AI or Chat GPT (a computer program cannot be a copyright holder), but in order to help other editors and researchers figure out what's going on with LLMs at Wikipedia, it would be helpful (though not required) to put "Chat GPT" somewhere in your edit summary, if you decide to use the text. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Asked again, requesting it to be briefer and summarize more, and got this:

Briefer summary, first 5 articles only

In summary, the text outlines a series of anti-Semitic laws issued in France on October 3, 1940, under the Vichy regime. The laws defined who was considered Jewish and restricted their rights and freedoms, including access to public office, education, and certain professions. The first article defines who is considered Jewish, stating that someone with at least three Jewish grandparents is considered Jewish, or someone with two Jewish grandparents who is married to someone with two Jewish grandparents. The article also states that someone who practices Judaism or had practiced it on June 25, 1940, and has two Jewish grandparents, is considered Jewish. The article also notes that renouncing Judaism has no effect on a person's status. The second article outlines the offices and public positions that Jews are barred from holding. These include high-level government positions, teaching, and military service. The third article restricts the types of jobs that Jews can hold in public administration or private enterprise. They can only hold jobs if they meet certain criteria, such as being a decorated veteran or the child or spouse of someone who died for France. The fourth article prohibits Jews from working in specific professions, including law, medicine, finance, and journalism. The fifth article lists additional professions that are prohibited to Jews, such as banking, advertising, and real estate. Overall, these laws represent a dark period in French history and the global struggle against anti-Semitism.

That seems better, but still leaves off the rest of the law. (Note how it gets the date of the law wrong, trying to work it out from the text of the law, I guess.) Mathglot (talk) 21:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup of section headings in bottom matter

Any objection if we use the standard naming for these? My proposal would be:

• "§ Archives" ⟶ (delete section; move Yad Vashem link to § References > General references)
• "§ Literature" ⟶ rename section to "§ Further reading"

Standard names for sections in the Appendix (bottom portion) of an article can be found at MOS:APPENDIX. The appendix in the article currently contains some non-standard section headings whose meanings are unclear to me, namely: § Archives, and § Literature. What are these about? If the Yad Vashem link currently under "Archives" is being used as a citation, then it belongs in § References, and if it isn't, then it probably belongs in § Further reading (which doesn't exist yet). I'm guessing that the current § Literature section should simply be renamed to "Further reading", per MOS:FURTHER, and also moved down below "References" because it's in the wrong place, per MOS:LAYOUT. Mathglot (talk) 02:46, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I did once change those two headings, but that got reverted at some time. For Literature, given its contents, the fairly standard #Further reading would seem to me to fit rather well.

As for Archives, I once changed it to #Sources. My opinion is that there should be one single place (e.g. Sources) to put links for all three French originals plus the two or three English translations, regardless of whether they also serve as in-text footnotes to #References. This would make it easier for the curious reader to find original texts without jumping around (or missing) items as several of us have been doing. "Sources", to me, is a clearer title than an easily-overlooked "General references".

[And if there's some arcane Wikipedia rule against repeating something in both Sources and footnoted References, I'd say we have a pretty good reason to override it — to help the reader. (Were readers made for the rules; or rules made for the reader?)]—— Shakescene (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I object. This a British English article and I'm not having a Further Reading section on the article, to fill with junk. I use a bibliography at top which is the standard format for British English articles. scope_creep^Talk 12:35, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Do we still need a couple of paragraphs

summarizing the law? Just checking back to see what happened here. What would be the single most important part of the text to put in a blockquote? I am thinking the change in the definition (?) Elinruby (talk) 04:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Welcome back. I'm strongly of the opinion that we need a fairly complete summary (no need to keep all those pension calculations, for example) to replace the text that's been moved to Wikisource. (In fact, I had thought it best to keep a full translated text here until we could make a summary that could replace the text.) —— Shakescene (talk) 04:39, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Since I just went through the text with a microscope I can probably add some text real quick. Depends on whether there are easy-to-find secondary sources. Doing several things right now but let's have a quick look Elinruby (talk) 09:09, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

"The second statute provided only one means of establishing non - Jewishness : " proof of adherence to one of the other confessions recognized by the state before the law of 9 December 1905" Paxton, Robert O., and Marrus, Michael Robert. Vichy France and the Jews. United States, Stanford University Press, 1995. page 92 Elinruby (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Returning France to the French meant in fact excluding the great majority of French Jews from medical and legal professions, from owning property and operating businesses, from education, from the movie industry and the media and all other aspects of society, culture, politics and the economy where their alleged power and influence by definition threatened or had already undermined the power and influence of "true Frenchmen." [6] p40 Elinruby (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Made a start. This should be considered a first draft Elinruby (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

As far as a summary, you saw section #Chat GPT summary above, right? As far as a blockquote, it should probably either be the definition, involving grandparents and all that, or else maybe some of the restrictions, like all the professions they can no longer exercise. Mathglot (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

See progress report just above Elinruby (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)