Humanities desk
< October 10	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 12 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 11

Unauthorized removal of the article without debate to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kingdom_of_Enclava&action=history and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Ongal&action=history - removing articles without debate to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong there. Just someone being bold. This is the wrong place anyway. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 12:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vyacheslav84, calling anything "unauthorized" indicates that you do not understand how Wikipedia works. Nothing ever needs to be authorized, it just needs to meet Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. I think that what you're objecting to is that the two articles have been turned into redirects (which is not removal, or deletion, and doesn't need to go to AfD). If you disagree, the place to debate this is on the articles' talk pages, according to dispute resolution. --ColinFine (talk) 15:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact there is discussion on the articles' talk pages, and I say nothing about whether these articles should have been deleted. But how can you say that turning an article into a redirect "is not removal, or deletion"? It's equivalent to deleting the article, then, as a separate action, creating a redirect to some existing article. Citation needed for Wikipedia policy on the terminology, please. --174.88.134.156 (talk) 21:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with an article being changed to a redirect, you can simply revert the change. I deliberately said "can", not "may"; there is no technical obstacle (in most cases) to doing this. Whether it's OK to do that depends on the circumstances.

But in any case, this is the reason that redirecting an article is not considered "deletion" — it is easily undone without administrator help, and the content remains easily accessible in the history. --Trovatore (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As noted by Trovatore, deletion (and undeletion) requires an administrator, and thus requires special conditions to be used. Redirecting involved normal editing, literally every single editor, whether registered or not, can redirect an article, and literally every single editor, whether registered or not, can undo the edit that made the redirect. Thus, creating (and reverting) redirects are subject to normal Wikipedia editing guidelines that govern editor behavior; they do not require formal discussions, but when in dispute, may be prudent to discuss to resolve any disagreements, once a disagreement has been expressed, as with any other edit made to any other article ever, including adding or removing any bits of text. --Jayron 32 17:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

book list

Where can I find a book list of all the books that have ever been written? (I read that there were 130 million total.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.34.205 (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such list. Some libraries have huge collections, see List of largest libraries, and websites like https://www.worldcat.org/ can search billions of items (not just books). You can also consult the ISBN registration agency of any particular country, which does keep a record of all registered books. However, none of these databases are complete, and they often lack many pre-modern and self-published books. - Lindert (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And furthermore, for libraries destroyed by fire, for example, there might not be any surviving list of the books within. So while it might theoretically be possible to list all the books which currently exist in some form or another, it is not possible to list every book ever written. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Putting a Muslim body in the pig's body prevent his soul to go to paradise - true or false?

In the past I saw here the same question and now I trying to find it, and I don't see it. Maybe you can help me to find the source for this claiming. 15:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.111.187.87 (talk)

We had this question back in May. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I'm pretty sure it was a quite a long before May. That was after. 19:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.111.187.87 (talk)

Are you thinking of this question from 2009? Adam Bishop (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, the truth or falsehood of such an assertion is not knowable. But in general, doing something to a body, and expecting that to somehow affect its soul's status in the afterlife, is an ancient superstition. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Like baptism :) - Nunh-huh 00:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Baptism after death? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the Mormons. But of course, I wasn't taking "body" to mean "dead body". - Nunh-huh 01:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was going with the context of the question. Presumably, I should have said "corpse". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rape culture

Hey every one,

Why rape culture happen? Why people deny rape if the posiblity to rape is bigger than not? I hear mothers, female, male - and dont undrstand why to deny? Thx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.84.98 (talk) 19:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very complex question so there are no simple answers. For other editors here [1]gives some background to what I think the OP is getting at. The OP is welcome to come back, to clarify if this is what s/he means.--Aspro (talk) 20:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As ever, Wikipedia even has an article on Rape culture.--Aspro (talk) 20:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia doesnt explain why it happen. But i will look on the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.84.98 (talk) 20:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

colonialism? I just ask in the daily...it is not help...why daily, in our life people deny rape???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.230.84.98 (talk) 20:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People don't deny rape. Some people withhold judgment in any particular case, i.e. neither believe that accusations are true nor that they're false unless/until they're proved true or false. That's because they believe in due process, or just believe it's none of their business (if they're not involved with the case). -- BenRG (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People may not deny rape, but they may have different concepts about what rape is: for example, in societies where women are treated as chattel, that is property of the men in society, rape is seen as theft from the man who owns the women, and not as an offense against the woman herself, but rather against either her father (if she is unmarried) or her husband. Whether one treats rape as a crime against the woman herself, or against the men she is related to, is a BIG difference. --Jayron 32 12:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the OP is just looking for answers about simple rape, after all. Articles about the psychological manipulation that agressors use upon victims and witnesses, articles about how it works for perverts who build their "spell" on victims and on other weak people, articles like that. Akseli9 (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]