Jump to content

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2021 January 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< January 17 << Dec | January | Feb >> January 19 >
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.


January 18

[edit]

Territories that had constant warfare for decades over the last several decades?

[edit]

Which territories had constant warfare for decades over the last several decades? Off of the top of my head, I can think of:

Exactly which other cases of this were there, though? I'm well-aware of the Korean War technically never having any peace treaty up to the present-day, but since 1953, the situation there has been more akin to a cold war than to a hot war; so, it doesn't really count for the purposes of my question here. Futurist110 (talk) 08:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanon had a civil war that lasted from 1975 to 1990, not quite "several decades".  --Lambiam 10:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a low-intensity conflict in Israel and Palestine since 1947 or even before, with occasional serious flare-ups Six-Day War, Yom Kippur War, First Intifada, Second Intifada etc... Some of these also involved Lebanon, mentioned above. Eastern Congo (DRC) has also been undergoing regular conflict, this one since around 1990 and still ongoing. Xuxl (talk) 13:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Karen conflict in Myanmar has been going since 1949 and shows no sign of ending soon. Alansplodge (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Moro conflict in the Philippines lasted for five decades, from 1969 to 2019, only ending with the establishment of Bangsamoro as an autonomous region following a binding plebiscite agreed upon between the warring parties.  --Lambiam 17:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to a short item in the January/February 2019 issue of Smithsonian magazine, there have been only 16 years in the history of the United States when country was not at war, namely 1796–97, 1807–09, 1816, 1894–97, and 1935–40. If that doesn't answer the question, I don't know what does. Except, of course, that not all of those "war" years involved active military conflict. --142.112.149.107 (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But that wasn't on American soil. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep--and thus it doesn't really count for the purposes of my question here. Futurist110 (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Colombian Conflict (1964–present), Somalia War (1991-present), Congolese Civil War --Error (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Kurdish–Turkish conflict (1978–present), the Second Sudanese Civil War (1983-2005), the Eritrean War of Independence (1961-1991). The Chinese Civil War and Second Sino-Japanese War combined to keep China in arms from 1927 to 1949, but perhaps I'm interpreting "the last several decades" too loosely with this one. --Antiquary (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sri Lankan Civil War from 1983 to 2009. Rmhermen (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peinliches Verhoer - an image with unknown origin

[edit]

The image File:Peinliches Verhoer.jpg has a name in German, which Google translates as Embarrassing interrogation. And it is used in articles Forced confession and History of the principle of inquisition in German criminal law (§ Practical translation to the criminal law of the Holy Roman Empire), which make the translation obviously fitting to the domain of law.

However, when searching for the image itself, instead of its name, Google finds almost exclusively pages in Spanish, which describe the image as El azotamiento de una monja which is The whipping of a nun. That suggests a punishment rather than a torture in interrogation. But none of those pages describes when and where the whipping happened and what the nun's crime was.

Also none specifies the image author or a time of creation.

Some context can be found in German Wikipedia: the image is used in articles about witch-hunting in Germany in early 17th century, one of which is a biography of a nun accused of witchcraft. This in turn confirms the image may depict an interrogation, not a punishment. Anyway those de-wiki articles do not specify the image origin, either.

How can it be found? --CiaPan (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image is supposedly from Het Bloedig Toonel (The Bloody Theater by Thieleman J. van Braght. Hint: historically, the word peinlich (from Pein "pain, agony, torture") was used in a more literal sense, like English "painful" (also related to penal). Cheers ⌘ hugarheimur 13:47, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This website has the same image captioned: Folterung der Schulmeisterin Ursel - 1570 - nach einem Stich von Jan Luyken or "Torture of the schoolmaster Ursel - 1570 - after a engraving by Jan Luyken". Ursel is now a small town, part of the municipality of Knesselare in Belgian Flanders, but it's also a common surname (so maybe the name of the teacher rather than the location). Alansplodge (talk) 13:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It also appears in Franz Helbing (1910), Die Tortur. Zweiter Teil: Von der Reformation bis zur Gegenwart in Chapter 1, with the caption: Folterung der Schulmeisterin Ursel zu Mastricht 1570. Nach dem Kupfer von Jan Luyken. The date of the image is given as "before 1712". Alansplodge (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And finally - it's in the collection of the Deutsche Fotothek in the Saxon State and University Library Dresden; see Folterung der Schulmeisterin Ursel zu Mastricht. Jämmerlich gepeinigt, gepeitschet und darnach verbrent. Anno 1570. Alansplodge (talk) 14:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A bit more digging finds that the subject is the elderly wife of Arent van Essen, a Protestant schoolmaster from Maastricht. The woman's given name was Ursel (Ursula). The couple, together with another old lady and her daughter, were tortured in an attempt to force them to renounce their faith and then burned at the stake in January 1570 by the city authorities at the behest of Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba. A detailed description in English is here. Alansplodge (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Last one, I promise. The Ursel image was one of Luyken's 104 illustrations for the 1685 edition of the Martyrs Mirror; the image in an English edition is here, captioned "The teacher Ursula painfully tortured, whipped, beaten, and finally burned in Maastricht, AD 1570". Alansplodge (talk) 15:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam also has a copy of this etching in its collection; the hosted image has a much higher resolution (but is tiled and not easily downloaded).  --Lambiam 16:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansplodge: I am really amazed at your searching skills and the underlying knowledge of sources to search. Thank you.
Do you think some of those information you found can be put into the image description at Commons? --CiaPan (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commons now updated, hopefully correctly. Thank you for the kind words CiaPan, it filled a dull afternoon during lockdown. Alansplodge (talk) 17:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courts for state-sponsored terrorism

[edit]

In the theory of international law, if a country receives the suspected victim of state-sponsored terrorism of another country (either under political asylum or for treatment, as in the case of Alexey Navalny) and then wants to present the evidence against that country and pursue legal action, what would be usual way to proceed and expect next? Does International Court of Justice or International Criminal Court handle such cases? I understand that in practice this is a long shot, but anyway (suppose there are some government hardliners who seek justice no matter what). 212.180.235.46 (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only states may bring a case to the Court. It would require a state that is a party to the Court's statute to come forward with a reasonable argument that they have an interest in the case – and if they have not first valiantly tried to reach a resolution through diplomatic means, I doubt the Court would even want to hear the case. Moreover, the state against which a case is brought has to consent to the Court hearing the case. A state that engages in terrorism is not very likely to consent to being tried.  --Lambiam 16:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, the ICC doesn't require states consent to the particular case. Rather they require "may only investigate and prosecute crimes committed within member states, crimes committed by nationals of member states, or crimes in situations referred to the Court by the United Nations Security Council." as our article says. The first two are sort of consent, but they are consent given by joining the court (or rather signing and ratifying the treaty) rather than in relation to any specific crime. The last one may not require consent from the affected state, unless that state happens to be a permanent member of the UNSC in which case the veto power means it sort of does. Or more accurately it requires the state not to withhold consent. (Since it's theoretically possible a permanent member could abstain on a motion to refer them to the ICC.) As a practical matter, such referrals are very rare as anyone familiar with the UNSC should be aware of, and of course do require the consent of a bunch of security council members (as well as non of the permanent members vetoing/withold consent). Note that in any case, state sponsored terrorism is not really a specific crime within the jurisdiction of the ICC. If the crime is committed within the state and is only against a single individual (instead of part of wider pattern of violations), it's hard to imagine it would warrant a genocide or crime against humanity investigation unless it related to some tiny subpopulation. Likewise it's unlikely it could be a crime of aggression if it's within the state. It could be a war-crime, although that would likely require some sort of armed conflict between the state and this individual or whoever they represent could be identified. For nearly all European countries, including Russia, a more likely avenue may be the European Court of Human Rights. However if it concerns an individual, the case will likely need to be brought by the individual not a state AFAIK. Also the individual would likely need to demonstrate that they've exhausted all domestic avenues. Nil Einne (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to clarify, the "committed within member states" is an important point here. Putting aside the unlikelihood that the poisoning of a single individual with no evidence of a wider pattern would fall ICC jurisdiction anyway, it means that the consent of the alleged perpetrator may not matter if the crime occurred within another state. For example, the Poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal occurred within the UK which is a member. (States parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, although the UK apparently hasn't signed any of the amendments.) So it did occur within a member state. (Which could also mean it could be construed as a crime of aggression, except that would require the UK signed and ratified the amendment, and it's difficult to imagine it would be construed as such anyway.) The lack of consent of the alleged perpetrator issue has been highlighted recently with the US's threats/use? of collective punishment against the families of those working at the ICC and journalists [1] [2] for those people's involvement in investigations or providing evidence about the possibility of violations committed by the US in Afghanistan and some other countries which are members, see International Criminal Court investigation in Afghanistan. (While the US has sanctioned family members before, AFAIK these have generally been when it's claimed these family members are benefiting from the corruption of the main target or something similar, if not involved in abuses themselves.) I also forgot to mention, that while it's theoretically possible in certain circumstances that an act against a single individual or even 5 individuals would be a war crime, it seems unlikely it would be serious enough for the ICC to take it up. Again it would likely to be part of a wider pattern. Nil Einne (talk) 18:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One final comment. While it's possible the conditions described by the OP would qualify for a case in the ECtHR once domestic remedies have been exhausted, and maybe it will even result in a judgement in favour of the individual bringing the case, as our article illustrates this doesn't mean anything useful will happen. The court lacks enforcement powers and Russia is one of the countries with a large number of non-implemented verdicts. By my read of the article, it's possible Russia will pay any damages, but anything further, seems far less likely. This may even include releasing Alexey Navalny, although that seems to be a separate even if related issue compared to the OP's question. Nil Einne (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same ship?

[edit]

Is the Cinco Chagas constructed in 1559-60 the same as was destroyed in 1594? Sources are somewhat contradictory. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most certainly it was. It was nicknamed Constantina after its builder Dom Constantino de Bragança, governor of the Estado da Índia, which may be the source of the confusion. 194.53.186.141 (talk) 11:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Yes, I see what you mean. The Tragic History of the Sea, 1589-1622 by C. R. Boxer ("a historian of Dutch and Portuguese maritime and colonial history") says:
"Perhaps the most famous of these India-built carracks was the Cinco Chagas ('Five Wounds'), constructed at Goa by the viceroy Dom Constantino de Braganza in 1559–60. She served in the carreira for twenty-five years, making nine or ten round voyages apart from others , and was the flagship of five viceroys before ending her days as a hulk at Lisbon... The India-built successor of the Cinco Chagas was less fortunate, being burnt and sunk on her maiden voyage".
Alansplodge (talk) 12:03, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Horner suggests that it was remarkable for a ship to survive ten years... Imagining that a ship was still active after 30 years feels like a stretch to me. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looking further at the Boxer citations in the article, they are in turn also properly referenced to early-17th century Portuguese sources. Not only does he say that the 1559 Cinco Chagas ended her days as a hulk at Lisbon, but goes on "When she was finally broken up, King Philip II (I of Portugal) had her keel sent to the Escurial as a trophy." So, two ships. (This discussion ought to be transcluded to the article talk page.) Davidships (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, why are the sources "somewhat contradictory"? Which sources state or even imply that there was only one Cinco Chagas? Davidships (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Davidships the article on Action of Faial cites a Portuguese source heavily and lists them as the same ship, so I thought the Portuguese source might make an explicit connection that the english ones didn't. I've crudely split the two articles now, so no major harm done. I also misread part of Boxer as implying a connection. Thank you for your help. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is in fact the OP's edit to the article of 18 January (thus before my reply) which is "contradictory". Referring to the ship's construction in 1560 he says "she was in service for around twenty six years". How then could Francisco de Mello have captained her in 1593? Robert Finlay, The Pilgrim Art [3] notes:

In 1598 Philip II of Spain was buried in the Escorial palace north of Madrid in a coffin made from the keel of the Cinco Chagas do Cristo...

The Cinco Chagas had been moored in Lisbon harbor for some years before Philip II died...

ip, see my response to David above. I’m confused as to how the confusion has become my fault. . . Eddie891 Talk Work 00:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added in some of the details above. Seems to be resolved now, thanks all. Alansplodge (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is "abolt"?

[edit]

Does the web site at abolt(dot)newsweek(dot)com have anything to do with the organization that owns the site at newsweek(dot)com?

At the former site I found an article written in the manner of one of those internet "slide shows" that try to appeal to imbeciles. Newsweek was for a long time considered a respectable news source. If it has turned into one of the slide-shows-for-morons purveyors, I'm guessing it will declare bankruptcy soon. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Newsweek has been considered a respectable news source since the late 1980s. In any case the ownership is different since 2010. I wouldn't worry about it too much. Temerarius (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As documented here, anything from Newsweek post-2013 is considered generally unreliable. Around that time period, it transitioned from what had previously been one of the top 2-3 (Along with Time and US News and World Report) well respected US weekly print news magazines to an online content farm and it no longer has any real journalistic integrity. Not exactly sure of the exact moment it became poorly regarded, the 2013 date is as good as any I suppose, the decline of Newsweek was not an instantaneous event but a slow downward spiral. The point is, if you have a legacy article from back when Newsweek was a respectable journalism outlet, use it. If you have something that was published in the last few years, it's crap. --Jayron32 15:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To give a straightforward answer, the owner (lessee) of the domain name xyz.com, sets the IP addresses for all subdomains like abc.xyz.com, def.gh.xyz.com... If newsweek.com isn't running the subdomain, it's still necessarily aware of and presumably sanctions its existence. 93.136.22.227 (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2021_January_18&oldid=1002789299"