Humanities desk
< February 18	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 20 >

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

February 19

Countries that had split governments–with two or more parties controlling sizable amounts of a country's territory and both claiming to be the legitimate government of the entire country–for a long time

Which cases were there of countries having split governments–with two or more parties controlling sizable amounts of a country's territory and both claiming to be the legitimate government of the entire country–for a long time? So far, I can think of:

France during the Hundred Years' War, especially in its later stages, when huge parts of it were controlled by both the English House of Plantagenet and the French Capetian cadet branch known as the House of Valois.
Korea from the end of World War II up to the present-day, being split into Communist North Korea and capitalist South Korea as a result of the partition of Korea.
China from 1949 up to the present-day, being split into Communist Mainland China and capitalist Taiwan.
Vietnam from 1954 to 1976, being split into Communist North Vietnam and capitalist South Vietnam as a result of the partition of Vietnam.
Germany from the end of World War II up to 1990, being split into capitalist West Germany and Communist East Germany as a result of the partition of Germany.
Yemen being split into capitalist North Yemen and Communist South Yemen from the late 1960s to 1990, I believe. Though if I recall correctly the partition of Yemen formally began in the early 19th century.
Libya being split into a western half and an eastern half over the last several years as a result of the Libyan Civil War (2014-present), with the leadership of both halves claiming all of Libya.
Possibly Syria as well, though I'm unsure if the Syrian rebels actually have a unified formal government.
Afghanistan being split into territories controlled by the internationally recognized Afghan government and territories controlled by the Taliban, aka the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, after the start of the Taliban insurgency there in the 2000s.

Anyway, though, which additional examples of this have there been? Futurist110 (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start with which countries should be removed from that list. First, you yourself asked if South Vietnam made territorial claims against North Vietnam and nobody said it did. Second, I do not believe either government in Germany ever claimed to be the legitimate government of the whole country; rather, they each hoped to be the surviving government if and when the country was reunified. I am therefore suspicious of the rest of your list too, except China, but I have no expertise to comment further. --142.112.149.107 (talk) 06:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to South Vietnam, I later found this interesting tidbit of information: Robert_McNamara#Into_Vietnam: "Fearful of causing a war with China, Johnson was opposed to the plans of Khánh to invade North Vietnam, and he was even less enthusiastic about having the United States invade North Vietnam.[71] To declare war on North Vietnam would lead to irresistible political pressure at home to invade North Vietnam.As such, the solution was floated for Congress to pass a resolution granting Johnson the power to wage war in Vietnam.[75]" Futurist110 (talk) 07:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for Korea, North Korea tried to conquer South Korea during the Korean War while South Korea subsequently tried to conquer North Korea with the United Nations's help later on in the same war–advancing all of the way up to the Yalu River, near the Chinese border, at one point in time, in fact! Futurist110 (talk) 07:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

North Yemen was royalist, then Nasserite, not really "capitalist". The West German constitution (Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany) envisioned East German areas being brought into the West German system... AnonMoos (talk) 09:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

<small?Notably BRD/West German also envisioned to some extent recovering East Prussia, the eastern border with Poland was only finally settled around the 1990 re-unification. --Soman (talk) 14:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

USA during its civil war; Ireland ditto; France during WWII? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:14, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, the Confederacy never claimed sovereignty over the states that had not joined it, and indeed, I think, only a limited sort of sovereignty over the ones that had. It's reasonable to think that their emphasis on state sovereignty was at least in part a pretext (the Fugitive Slave Act was not very states'-rightsy at all) but they do seem to have believed in it enough to have upheld it to their detriment in prosecuting the war. --Trovatore (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Angola, Sudan, Palestine are a few modern examples --Soman (talk) 11:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The English Civil War, aka the War of the Three Kingdoms: The Cromwell-led Commonwealth of England and the Charles II government-in-exile. Charles worked closely with pro-Royalist groups in Scotland and Ireland especially (i.e. the Covenanters, see also the Treaty of Breda. Also, France during World War II had the collaborationist Philippe Pétain-led Vichy government; in opposition to this was the Free French government of Charles de Gaulle. This may not be entirely accurate if we only take Metropolitan France as "France", but if we expand our view to the wider French Empire, Free French forces controlled much of Africa. --Jayron 32 13:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

India in WWII is a bit of a border-line case. There was the Viceroy of India's government (a colonial government) and the nominally independent Azad Hind Provisional Government, which through Japanese military intervention was given authority of limited parts of the country. I mention it as a border-line case as one could argue that it was a conflict between a colonial power and a rebel anti-colonialist government (of which there are many, many more examples), but the dynamics of WWII are a bit peculiar and both sides claimed to be the legitimate government of all of British-ruled India (...without going into the distinction of British India and princely states. Not 100% sure what position Azad Hind took to French and Portuguese possessions...) --Soman (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Most countries that have ever had a civil war and all that have had a war of independence. ----Serial 15:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the original question was "... and both claiming to be the legitimate government of the entire country-for a long time", that is not true for all countries that have had a war of independence. Usually, the region seeking independence neither wishes nor claims to govern the entire country. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"For a very long time" is far too subjective to be a useful parameter, while the original question literally refers to countries, not regions therein. {{cn}} needed for the second part of your comment. ----Serial 15:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if the rebelling side claims to be the legitimate ruler of the whole territory, it's not really a war of independence, is it? I suppose there might be cases where one side claims sovereignty over the whole territory but in actuality wants independence, or at least would settle for it. Taiwan might possibly be an example of that, though I'm out of my depth on that point. Are there any other examples? --Trovatore (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's more or less what I meant. By "region" I meant the part that, after the war, became a separate country, without seeking or claiming to govern the area of both countries. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taiwan has no means to press the claim, but I don't believe that the Republic of China has ever relinquished officially claiming to be the only legitimate government over all of China, though there has been over time a growing and powerful sentiment among successive generations that Taiwan should be establishing a separate identify from that of mainland China, (see Taiwanese identity), which is more of a recognition of the de facto status rather than the rather convoluted de jure status of Taiwan. --Jayron 32 17:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, as far as I know they have not officially relinquished the claim. My point was that it seems to be hard to know how sincere they are about it. Particularly given that (somewhat counterintuitively from a Western POV, or at least from mine) the PRC seems to be much more exercised by the notion of formal Taiwan independence than by the notion of the ROC claiming the right to control the mainland, and indeed have threatened war if Taiwan should assert independence, whereas the claim of ROC sovereignty over all of China seems to be something they're willing to tolerate as long as it remains just a claim. --Trovatore (talk) 07:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've never found it particularly counterintuitive, if anything it seems a logical outcome of the PRC's thinking. From their POV, the ROC government claiming sovereignty over all of China means they agree with the PRC that Taiwan is an intrinsic part of China. It then becomes a more minor disagreement about who is actually the legitimate government of China rather than an attempt to break away which they consider a red line. Nil Einne (talk) 11:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not going to argue with you that you ought to find something strange if you don't find it strange. But I certainly find it strange, and particularly that they held this view even back when the CCP was actually communist. I would have expected them to be more concerned about making sure that the mainland remained under communist rule (and in particular their rule) than about the indivisibility of Chinese land holdings. They're not really communist anymore, more a sort of authoritarian nationalist state-capitalist (state capitalism is not really capitalism, of course). But I still find it odd, because everything else they do seems to be aligned with the central goal of maintaining and solidifying CCP power. --Trovatore (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ROC (Taiwan) government tried to block the admission of Mongolia (independent "outer" Mongolia) to the United Nations during the 1950s with its Security Council veto, due to longstanding claims, until the ROC was pressured to stop the obstruction (I remembered it as being U.S. pressure, but our Mongolia-Taiwan relations article says Soviet pressure). Some branches of the ROC government issued maps of China including Mongolia until somewhat recently... AnonMoos (talk) 10:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A very modern example is the Venezuelan presidential crisis, where there are two different governments, including two presidents (Nicolás Maduro and Juan Guaidó), two different legislatures (the Constituent National Assembly and the National Assembly) and two different Supreme Courts (the Supreme Tribunal of Justice and the Supreme Tribunal of Justice of Venezuela in exile). This state of affairs has existed since 2018, with both complete governments claiming to represent the whole of the country and neither one recognizing the legitimacy of the other. Indeed, I'm surprised no one has yet brought it up as it is probably the best representation of the OP's criteria. --Jayron 32 15:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's useful to look at the constitutions of the various candidates. In the Irish constitution the name of the country is stated to be "Ireland". After the Good Friday agreement Article 2 stated "every person born in the island of Ireland" has the right "to be part of the Irish Nation". 146.199.206.11 (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but it doesn't anywhere make territorial claims to the land of Northern Ireland, nor does the UK make any territorial claims to the Republic of Ireland's land. Granting citizenship right to people born outside of your claimed boundaries is common enough (see Jus sanguinis for a related concept). To grant the rights of the citizen to persons born in Northern Ireland does not mean that the Republic has any claims on the land, however. --Jayron 32 17:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Until 1999 the Republic claimed the whole of the island of Ireland. See Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution of Ireland. DuncanHill (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I'm not aware of any bilateral claims to the whole island of Ireland after the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921; Britain granted them full Dominion status on par with Canada and Australia, making them functionally independent and relinquishing claims to sovereignty over the Irish Free State, which after the transition to Republic status in 1937 in the Adoption of the Constitution of Ireland, the same document you note. Britain at the time made some perfunctory objections to the use of certain names, and also of the Republic's claims to Northern Ireland as you note; however at no time since 1921 has Britain claimed sovereignty over the whole Island, making the Irish claims between 1937-1999 as being irredentist in nature, and not a simultaneous claim to the same territory (the whole of the island) by two countries. --Jayron 32 19:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the ROC/PRC issue, the government on Taiwan has not been particularly keen on reclaiming China since CKS died (1975). It maintained the fiction of being the sole ‘’legitimate’’ government of all of China through most of the 1980s, but since then has avoided the matter whenever possible. Ironically, the ‘’’only’’’ remaining reason for not giving up the claim is that the PRC threatens to take military action if Taiwan does so. DOR (HK) (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone give me any more information on this image please?

This image shows a person reaching out to a monkey/ape, with the words Mazurier - role de Joko underneath. I think it's Charles-Francois Mazurier, who was an actor/mime/dancer, presumably playing in the role of Joko in something. I guess it was around the 1820s, but that's about all I can tell. I'd appreciate any further details about the artist, or indeed the role of Joko, thanks.95.150.174.25 (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing an image at that link. --Viennese Waltz 13:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it. ——Serial 13:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image description states "Mazurier as Jocko, the role he danced with enormous success during the 1826 season at the Théâtre de la Porte-Saint-Martin. Depicts Mazurier costumed as an ape, sitting on a rock at left; a young boy at right reaches toward him." Wikipedia does not appear to have an article about Charles-Francois Mazurier, but the name is mentioned at Jean Coralli, who worked with him apparently. French Wikipedia has a short article about him here. --Jayron 32 13:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the play DOES have an English Wikipedia article Jocko ou le Singe du Brésil (in English: Jocko, or The Monkey of Brazil), and the French version of the article confirms that Mazurier played the role, AND has a version of the drawing in the OP. --Jayron 32 13:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also fr:Charles-François Mazurier which I have attempted to translate with much assistance from Mr Bing:-

Charles-François Mazurier was a French mime [artist] and dancer born in Lyon in 1798 and died in Paris on February 4, 1828. A famous "dislocated" (?) dancer, Mazurier began his career as a comic and character dancer in 1819 in Bordeaux and then in his hometown (1820-1823). His repeated successes led him to Paris, where he made his debut in 1823 at the Porte-Saint-Martin theatre. The author of the New Theatre Biography calls him "the Caesar of the pirouette, the Alexander of the Cabriole, the privileged (?) of the split." One of his specialties is his "Polichinelle pace", danced on stilts, which Jean-Baptiste Blache created for him. Mazurier died in Paris in 1828 from a chest disease at the age of twenty-nine. He was buried in the Père-Lachaise cemetery; his grave has since been taken over.

Not sure if there's a better translation of danseur « disloqué » though. Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A marionette is sometimes called a "pantin disloqué" (lit. dislocated puppet), perhaps because of the way that the limbs are disjointed from each other. See here or here for the related term "pantin désarticulé". As you can see from the both links, people's dancing is often described by analogy to a pantin disloqué or a pantin désarticulé perhaps to indicate that it was "marionette like". It doesn't have a direct idiom in English, though perhaps "disjointed dancing" may be the best approximation, perhaps also something like a contortionist is what they are going for here. "Le Privilégié" as a noun literally means "The Privileged (one)" but in the sense written, it would be better translated as "the Master of". My French is a bit rusty, so I welcome corrections from a more natively inclined speaker. --Jayron 32 17:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A little more research shows that pantin disloqué may be referring to a Jumping jack (toy) rather than a marionette, but it's still a kind of puppet, so I think my understanding holds. --Jayron 32 17:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Loose-jointed" is, I think, an English expression that is sometimes applied to dancing. (I seem to recall it's being used of Buddy Ebsen's style.) Deor (talk) 18:06, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article about Mazurier on the French Wikipedia also contains a quotation from the Grand Larousse du XIX^e siècle that mentions Jocko:

"Mazurier delighted all of Paris under the Restoration. A good dancer and charming mime, his pleasantness and his lazzi, his adroitness and his boldness, were incomparable in Polichinelle vampire, les Meuniers, le Gascon à trois visages, le Déserteur, Jean-Jean, la Neige, Gulliver, and especially Jocko, performed at Porte Saint-Martin. In Jocko, a little touching drama, Mazurier, sewn in a monkey's skin, made people laugh by his frolics and cry by his death. The English envied us at Jocko, whose popularity was universal; they engaged the French clown for six weeks in the theatre of Drury Lane at the price of 1,200 francs per night, 200 francs more than were paid Talma and Mademoiselle Mars."

--Lambiam 23:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trump, Nixon, and Liability

I'm not a lawyer, by any means, but I've been curious about this given recent news. I've had a few friends (as well as seen a few mentions in opinion pieces) about sueing Trump for what happened on Jan 6th - usually regarding what happened to the cop that died in the event, or the damage caused. Most people seem to mention something about Trump not sending aid or inciting the event. Given Nixon v. Fitzgerald, would Trump be open to a civil suit since any choice on sending aid, or what not, would be acting as president not a private citizen? In the case of inciting, it sounds like if he was criminally liable, he might be civilly liable as a result, would that be true? This question isn't so much about Trump and Jan 6th as it is about what that case means and if a president can be sued - if Trump is too political, please feel free to use any hypothetical situation instead. As mentioned, I have no legal education and may be asking something really obvious or silly, apologies if so.2601:547:1:4EE0:50C9:5B67:8787:7511 (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, the are differences between civil and criminal law in terms of standards for evidence and the threshold for conviction/liability. In a criminal case, the standard is usually "beyond a reasonable doubt", which is a much higher standard than in a civil case. Famously from the past, O.J. Simpson was found to be not guilty in the death of his wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and Ron Goldman, in the O. J. Simpson murder case, however he was found liable for Goldman's death in the civil suit subsequently filed by his family. While he could not be imprisoned for losing the civil trial, he did have to pay damages to the family. The idea behind the civil suits in the case of the January 6th riot is similar; the standards for a civil case against Trump for inciting the violence and thus being civilly liable for the damages from that riot are much lower than the standards to hold him criminally guilty. --Jayron 32 14:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because the asserted causative acts—whether statements on the campaign trail, in and around litigation stemming from the election, and at a rally prior to the incident—were not the official acts of the President, the rule in Nixon v. Fitzgerald would probably not confer immunity. In general, it sounds like you're interested in presidential immunity, and I would suggest continuing research on that subject. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Metre in the Divina Commedia

Dante's Divina Commedia is well known to have used terza rima as its rhyming scheme, but reading it (being not very proficient in Italian) I find it difficult to grasp the rhythm of the poetry. Can someone clarify the exact metre that is used? Or is it to some extent variable? rossb (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Hendecasyllable#In Italian poetry. Many lines can be read as approximately iambic, but that's perhaps fortuitous. (When you're reading the verse, don't forget about elision of a word-ending vowel before a word-beginning vowel.) Deor (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can also listen to the first Canto of the Inferno, for example recited by Vittorio Gassman (here) or by Roberto Benigni (here). ---Sluzzelin talk 18:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]