The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Humanities desk
< June 30	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 2 >

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.

July 1

UN Regulations

In a question above one of our esteemed associates has commented: "...1949, bc UN rules of self-determination basically demands that, if a province wants to separate and turn into a new state, it must be so, and we would have had 2 states.." This has opened a range of questions for me to ponder. Kindly assist. This ruling seems to have been flouted many times, see Basque region in Spain. Also Spain's recent crackdown on the Catalonian's who wanted to separate. I am sure we could list numerous others. Question 1. Am I missing something or has this rule been ignored over and over again by many countries. Secondly I would like to draw our attention back to the Rwanda Genocide and how the UN appeared to be completely useless. I recall many people on the ground at the time and just after discussing in quiet setting about how the UN is useless and should be disbanded as it is only a platform for the top nations to veto and tell smaller nations what to do. Without an army it is a toothless tiger. Question 2. Has there been any official talk of disbanding the UN because it has proven to be fairly useless. Example, resolving the Israel Palestine problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.40.58 (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answering question 1: Enforcement in international law has always been a huge problem, and of all the enforcement questions that international law has found difficult to answer have been those questions which deal with the territorial integrity and internal sovereignty of another nation. That said, there have been significant successes. Border disputes between two nations, for example, are subject to fairly settled international law and are themselves quite easy to handle (except, of course, where one of the nations refuses to settle it amicably). As to relatively internal conflicts, you're quite right that these rarely have ended with the split into two states.
As to Question 2, I would dispute the premises of your question: Why do those specific examples make the UN useless? One of its first serious tests, in the wake of World War II and in the early days of the Cold War, dealt with the Corfu Channel incident and the connected World Court case, which were resolved quite satisfactorily despite Albania's long refusal to pay its reparations. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself at odd with my own previous writing (as I originated the comment). I was referring to a case of a province already de facto separated, with enough UN support. This obviously do not apply to Basque or Catalonia regions in Spain, as they are not de facto separated. This did apply to East Pakistan, but required a war. Somaliland is another example of a de facto separated province, seeking international recognition as a state, were the UN currently fails to apply its own rule of self determination. Gem fr (talk) 09:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for the second question, any country can walk out of the UN. None ever did, even when very critical of the UN, or under UN fire. This is proof enough that all countries find it useful. Besides, remember that just doing nothing is a legit course of action, sometime the best. You may have higher expectation, but you should consider that what is wrong may be your too high level of expectation, not what is effectively done. Gem fr (talk) 09:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about a reference? Criticism of the United Nations seems fairly comprehensive. --Viennese Waltz 09:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gem_fr -- USSR was boycotting UN sessions in 1950, when United Nations Security Council Resolution 82 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 83 were passed... AnonMoos (talk) 11:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

indeed: jan-aug so called Chinese boycott. But USSR however did not withdraw, the way many countries walked away from League of Nations. Even during this pretty hot phase of the cold war, even when USSR was the underdog in UN, it still considered being a member was better than being out. This means something. Gem fr (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on Self-determination#The_UN_Charter_and_resolutions, which discusses some of the complications. In particular, note that there is also a UN-supported right for a state to defend its territorial integrity, which potentially contradicts the right of a people to self-determination. (Also, I think the principle of self-determination was primarily intended to be about overseas colonies gaining independence or self-government, while territorial integrity was primarily intended to be about not conquering or annexing other countries, so depending on the situation, one, none, or both may apply). Also note that (based on a very brief skim of the article), "self-determination" is about a people's right, not a province, so in situations when only a slim majority (or plurality) supports independence, that might not be enough to justify breaking away. Iapetus (talk) 10:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

81.131.40.58 -- The United Nations actually played an overall fairly useful role in the Arab-Israeli conflict from 1947 until at least the early 1960s. It couldn't arrange a formal peace when some parties conspicuously rejected the very idea of peace, but it performed a number of small constructive tasks in sweeping up around the edges of the huge mess which the British had left behind. The 1947 UN Partition Plan made the choice between peace and war very clear, and that the Arabs were the ones who chose war. Unfortunately, in May 1967, secretary-general U Thant abruptly withdrew UNEF from the Egypt-Israel border and Sharm el-Sheikh without any broader diplomatic consultation, and in violation of assurances which the United Nations had given the Israeli government in 1957. The manner in which UNEF was withdrawn caused regional destabilization, and played a significant role in precipitating the June 1967 6-day war, at a time when the United Nations should have been trying to prevent a war. And of course with the rise of third-worldism in the 1970s (also known as the alliance of petty despots and tin-pot tyrants against democracies), Israel became the ritualistic United Nations whipping-boy and scapegoat, subjected to Two Minutes Hate style denunciations of which United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 is the most infamous and notorious... AnonMoos (talk) 11:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That stuff about U Thant is quite wrong. The UN was there at Egyptian sufferance on Egyptian territory and had to leave when requested. Israel which had always rejected similar UN forces had nothing to do with it and was never assured that that the UN would stay when the Egyptians wanted them out. U Thant delayed and tried to change Nasser's mind, going above and beyond - They were more protecting the Egyptians from Israel than vice versa - after all the 1956 war was an Israeli-French-British attack on Egypt.John Z (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, in 1957, Israel received assurances and commitments from the United Nations that UNEF would not be withdrawn without some form of diplomatic process or wider diplomatic consultation. I don't know exactly who U Thant consulted with in May 1967, but he certainly didn't consult with representatives of the major powers or the Israeli government, and his "delay" amounted to about 36 hours. Therefore, the Israeli government concluded that the U.N. assurances of 1957 (which Israel had relied on when it withdrew from the Sinai in 1957) had been violated, and that word of the United Nations was completely worthless and untrustworthy, and that Israel basically had to rely on itself. Such a state of affairs (created by U Thant's actions) was certainly not auspicious for preserving peace. Also, the situation of UNEF forces along the Egypt-Israel border was not exactly the same as the situation of UNEF forces in Sharm-el-Sheikh. The Sharm-el-Sheikh soldiers weren't on the front-lines (between Egyptian and Israeli forces) at all, but withdrawing them enabled Nasser to cross Israel's casus belli "red line" of reblockading the Straits of Tiran -- something that he may not have originally intended to do (before U Thant's actions), and which made an outbreak of war in 1967 almost inevitable. The 1967 6-day war had a number of precipitating factors, but the way in which U Thant withdrew UNEF (hastily, almost unilaterally, including Sharm-el-Sheikh) was one of the bigger ones (along with the Soviet Union lying to Syria that an Israeli attack on Syria was imminent, of course)... AnonMoos (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

please stop. ref desk is not a forum to discuss the merit of a UN decision that is very very loosely (to say the least) connected with OP question Gem fr (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be unnecessarily quarrelsome, but from a number of points of view U Thant's actions in May 1967 mark the point when the United Nations role in the Arab-Israeli conflict went from being an overall positive to an overall negative (and not just for Israelis -- see also the 2004 book "Nasser: The Last Arab" by Saïd K. Aburish...). AnonMoos (talk) 18:49, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. We don't have a Wikipedia article on "toothless tiger", but we do have one on "paper tiger". However, in the eyes of some this phrase represents Mao Zedong's careless insouciance about the prospect of China fighting a nuclear war... AnonMoos (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In 1888, Belgian bank notes were changed to be bilingual, and this fact is mentioned in Dutch Wikipedia. Could you help me find a source?

A dutch friend mentioned this while we discussed the 4th of July. It'ss mentioned here, but there's no source for that statement since it is an outline of things that happened that day. Could someone help me? Thanks! User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 21:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this Wikipedia, Belgian franc#Language says the date was 1887, and cites a former National Bank of Belgium web page as the source. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

just search "belgian banknote 1888" and ... https://books.google.fr/books?id=lAgmV6YfnhEC&pg=PA34&lpg=PA34&dq=belgian+banknote+%221888%22&source=bl&ots=BU5rp_q9ec&sig=ACfU3U0VLXdOb4Ue8dOrcT2_EZq9DVom0w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjW-cnP3JTjAhWv3OAKHQTmBAQ4ChDoATABegQIBxAB

Gem fr (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll mention in passing that https://books.google.fr/books?id=lAgmV6YfnhEC&pg=PA34 (keeping only the first two fields) gives the same result. —Tamfang (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a reliable source for the cause of death of Louise d'Artois?

It states here that Louise d'Artois died in 1864 of typhus:

https://books.google.com/books?id=wlZEAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA294&dq=duchess+of+parma+died+1864+typhus&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjy_MHe7vjiAhWWnp4KHbx9B8YQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=duchess%20of%20parma%20died%201864%20typhus&f=false

However, I was told that this wasn't a reliable source. Thus, I'm wondering if anyone here could find a reliable source that gives the cause of death for this woman (Louise d'Artois)--whether it be typhus or something else. Futurist110 (talk) 23:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any particularly good reason to exclude The Month as a reliable source. Yes, it's old, and yes, it was owned by an interest group, but I don't see either of those as mattering here. It's a known fact that declarations of cause of death were not so accurate in the past as they are now, and many older claims are suspect, but absent a more recent contradictory source, I don't see a problem with this. Or is there something specific about that one entry in the magazine? Someguy1221 (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 You don't dismiss a source just like that. Just because its written doesn't make it true, but just because the source may be wrong is no reason to discard it without providing a better one. Even The Onion may state a few accurate things, after all Gem fr (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to talk to User:Kansas Bear about this. For some reason, he considers this source to be unacceptable--though personally, I am unsure that quoting this source is any worse than, say, quoting CNN or Time Magazine is. One would think that if a magazine was considered a reliable source at the time and no new information emerged to challenge the information in a particular source, then the information from the old source should be accepted. This would be especially true if an old source is referring to historical events--unless of course new information emerged about these events since that old source was written (which, to my knowledge, hasn't actually occurred in this specific case). Futurist110 (talk) 04:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to find out who author "V. V." is. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any ideas for this? I honestly don't know who he or she is. I tried searching for more information about them and found absolutely nothing. Futurist110 (talk) 05:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time right now, but I would propose looking through the rest of that issue to see if perhaps the full name was given in another piece, and he/she simply initialed subsequent articles? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't appear to see this person's full name anywhere in that issue. It's the same for a couple of other journalists who used only their initials for that issue. Futurist110 (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it won't help. It was usual for journos to sign with initials, and to work for different papers using different name. I remember of a comedy where the main character wrote in 3, including 2 political paper of opposing side, so he had to challenge himself in a duel (hence the comedy). Gem fr (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since you already have a source, methink its reliability should be discussed in the talk page of the article, not here. Gem fr (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Typhoid fever is mentioned in this book, which I’m guessing used the magazine as a source, based on its wording. But perhaps the book authors had a better or alternate source – maybe you could request the book from WP:RX or from a library so you can look at their bibliography and footnotes? I don’t think you can use the book itself since it is self-published, but am not up on the rules. Other statements in the text seems to indicate that they had access to letters and other normal sources for historians. “Quelques jours plus tard, la fièvre typhoïde se déclare. La duchesse de Parme en est atteinte et meurt tandis que l'abbé Trébuquet lit la prière des agonisants. Sur la table du salon, on retrouve le tricot qu'elle confectionnait pour les pauvres. Elle est enterrée à Goritz le 7 février 1864.” 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:39, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about this book?: Brook-Shepherd, Gordon. (1991). The Last Empress – The Life and Times of Zita of Austria-Hungary 1893–1989. If Google Books is correct, this book likewise contains the information about Louise d'Artois dying from typhoid fever. I don't know from where exactly this book got this information since I don't have access to this book, though. Futurist110 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Robert, together with his younger brother Henry and their two sisters, Margaret and Alicia, moved first to Wartegg in eastern Switzerland, where their mother had bought a small property. Then, at her death from typhoid in 1864, they passed into the care of her brother, the count of Chambord." p. 4. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's the source that this book provides for this information, though? Futurist110 (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, no idea. Gordon Brook-Shepherd doesn't seem to use footnotes unless he's directly referring to another publication. Otherwise there is just the bibliography. Though he does not cite The Month in his bibliography. It's plausible he got this information directly from Zita, Louise's granddaughter. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Did he personally know Zita? Futurist110 (talk) 07:15, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Their lives overlapped and they were said to be friends. Zita gave him permission to write her biography, though it was published after her death. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:22, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It might be time to go to WP:RSN with this as he's been challenged as a source. Doug Weller talk 20:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are everyone's thoughts about this? "The next term a man he had never seen before asked if he would go back to investigate the Nazi sympathies of German youth; but Shepherd was busy working to obtain a double first in Modern History." --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:23, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what that has to do anything. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

but Shepherd was busy working to obtain a double first in Modern History. You do not think this is relevant?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:00, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pray tell, how is this relevant? Are you suggesting that journalists should be required to have a degree in history in order to be reliable, or what? I'm afraid that I simply don't get your point here. Futurist110 (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize anyone was challenging whether he had the relevant degrees. "he's been challenged as a source" is very vague, tbh. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly was his scholarship challenged? Futurist110 (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

tbh, I thought this was a discussion concerning the reliability of Gordon Brook-Shepherd as a source. What is even more confusing is the acceptance of an anonymous article written in an obscure journal from the 19th century! Although, now all of this is coming across as a private conversation for certain individuals. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This journal isn't obscure enough for it not to have its own Wikipedia article. Futurist110 (talk) 22:19, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

well, just every quote can be traced back to a single certain individual, writing that something happened (most of the time himself not being a witness). At some point you just have to trust the guy, or turn hypercritical and ending up with just no evidence of nothing. Gem fr (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about a compromise where we will say something along the lines of "according to The Month, Louise d'Artois died of typhus." That way, we wouldn't assert this information as unequivocal, indisputable fact but nevertheless provide a source for this information. Ultimately, this is an issue with secondary sources in general--especially when we don't know where exactly these secondary sources got their information from. Sometimes primary sources are not available and thus we have to either use secondary sources or not use anything at all and thus completely ignore the relevant information. Futurist110 (talk) 22:22, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think attribution is not even necessary. The Month was, really, an ordinary and trustworthy magazine. It's editors were highly respected writers in their time (easy to look into more than just the two that have Wikipedia articles), and aside from allowing writers to contribute work under pseudonyms, it doesn't throw up any red flags. I think if this magazine existed today we would accept it as a source, but still just prefer something a bit better. If there is a concern that the writer didn't say how they found out the cause of death, well, we accept sources that don't explain the full chain of evidence as being reliable all the time - that's most newspaper articles. I'd actually prefer a 155-year-old source in that case. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as far as I can see no serious issue of reliability has been brought up concerning The Month etc; so there is nothing wrong with saying it without attribution in the article text and only normal footnoting.John Z (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Gem fr (talk) 07:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are people really suggesting that because they are unable to find a proper WP:RS source they should be given a free pass to use non-RS sources? It appears the claim is only found in a 19th century (i.e. outdated) work written by an anonymous author. It should therefore not be included. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, per Doug Weller's recommendation; WP:RSN is just around the corner. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think people are suggesting that The Month is RS, and that it does not make sense to call it "outdated". Outdated implies that it has been supplanted by a more recent source. That has not been demonstrated. Therefore, it is not outdated - it's just old, and being old does not make it unreliable. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:25, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. It is quite ridiculous to claim that a 19th century source about a then contemporary event is "outdated"; if so, then we must just erase all history. And so is the claim that the author is "anonymous" just because YOU don't know who wrote the piece. As if the piece being signed, say, Victor Vernoux instead of V.V. changed anything for us. As if, for legal purpose, the author were not the publisher (who knew very well who wrote). Gem fr (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]