Humanities desk
< December 23	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 25 >

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.

December 24[edit]

How did Germany feel about Ukraine and Ukrainians in the Imperial and Weimar German eras?[edit]

How did Germany feel about Ukraine and Ukrainians in the Imperial and Weimar German eras? Seems like a relevant question considering that Germany occupied Ukraine during World War I, again during World War II, and is currently expanding its sphere of influence (specifically the European Union) into Ukraine yet a third time within a century! So, Yeah, I was wondering how exactly the typical Germans felt about Ukraine and Ukrainians under Bismarck, under Kaiser Wilhelm II, under the various Weimar German governments, and even in the early years of Nazi rule in Germany.

Thoughts? Futurist110 (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many Germans might not have been clearly aware of a separate Ukrainian identity until various tumultuous events near the end of WW1, since Ukrainians had been commonly refered to as "Little Russians", inhabitants of "Little Russia" (Kleinrussland). AnonMoos (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial German plans for Central Asia during World War I?[edit]

Did Imperial Germany ever make any plans for Central Asia during World War I? If so, what were these plans (as in, what exactly did these plans consist of) and when were these plans made? Futurist110 (talk) 00:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Central Asia is an awful long way away from the Russian imperial capital of St. Petersburg. I doubt that Germany ever had any plans to go that far and what purpose it could possibly have served. Xuxl (talk) 15:17, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose (well, one theoretical purpose) of this would have been to secure a German pivot point to China. Futurist110 (talk) 21:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans already had holdings in China (Qingdao), so why would they need to go the long, long, long way through central Asia? On the other hand, they were silly enough to concoct Imperial German plans for the invasion of the United States. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more to promote economic development in that part of the world. Futurist110 (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Germany only entered the First World War because it had agreed to defend the Austrians against the Russians, who were themselves acting in defence of Serbia. As far as I can tell, there was no plan for world domination analogous to the fantasies of the Nazis. Alansplodge (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not world domination, just a continuous German sphere of influence extending from the German border all of the way up to the Chinese border. Futurist110 (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen anything that might support that theory. Alansplodge (talk) 10:38, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason as to why these things are called alternate history. :) Futurist110 (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is that like an alternative fact? ;-) Alansplodge (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Paul Rohrbach had some ideas. Also Central Asia played an important role in WWI Ottoman plans and propaganda. You can find some information in this downloadable file (for example at page 20 or searching "Turkestan" in the text): https://www.mediafire.com/file/skr85v0qh19m2v0/WWI.doc/file --79.31.10.126 (talk) 19:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Will check out! Futurist110 (talk) 21:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You would do well to read Peter Hopkirk's On Secret Service East of Constantinople: The Plot to Bring Down the British Empire, 1994 ISBN 0719550173, published in the USA as Like Hidden Fire: The Plot to Bring Down the British Empire. DuncanHill (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of David Allison McKinley[edit]

Trying to find a photograph of David Allison McKinley, brother of William McKinley. I am only aware of the sketch from his obituary. KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Google Image "David Allison McKinley" and a couple of photos turn up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No nothing shows up. Just images of William McKinley, their father and mother and other family members. I wouldn't ask a question I could google. KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, you're right. The image labeled "David Allison McKinley" is actually William Sr. I went to Ancestry.com (pay site) and the only thing anyone seems to have is that same profile sketch. If he appears in family photos, it's possible none were ever scanned for public consumption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One obvious place to look is in printed biographies of William McKinley. Of course, to browse them you'd have to have access to a library that was open. No such thing around here just now. I poked around in Google Books but didn't find anything relevant. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 08:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity--when and where was his obituary published? Futurist110 (talk) 08:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In The San Francisco Chronicle of September 19, 1892, page 10.^[1] Both a news item and an obituary. --Lambiam 11:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several biographies of William McKinley at archive.org but although there are lots of pictures of his parents, there don't seem to be any of his brother. Alansplodge (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question about Ancient Chinese courtesy names[edit]

I'm working on Cai Lun's article and his courtesy name is Jingzhong. I'm wondering if in the Han Dynasty there was a specific time in someone's life when courtesy names would be given, or if it was completely circumstantial. The issue is that I'd like to include this info in the body of the article (to get the citation out of the lead!), but I'm not sure where to put it since it isn't known when Cai received his courtesy name. Best - Aza24 (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article on courtesy names says men received them at adulthood, or age 20, citing the Book of Rites. I can't say for sure whether that practice continued into the Han, or whether it necessarily applied in the same way to eunuchs like Cai Lun. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was Tynemouth in Northumberland in 1957?[edit]

Was Tynemouth in Northumberland in 1957? “Asking for a friend.”

I do mean administratively as well as historically. The article talks of changes in 1974 but …

Thank you!

Ceremonially, yes. Administratively, no. It had its own county borough which was independent of Northumberland county council and included North Shields. Valenciano (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also; A history of Northumberland, Volume VIII: The Parish of Tynemouth (1907). Alansplodge (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Valenciano and Alansplodge, both of you, very much. The Craster (1907) work is lovely but doesn't tell me what was going on 50 years later in 1957; and Valenciano can you please tell me if you are saying definitely that the County Borough of Tynemouth was still in existence in 1957, and do you have a ref for that, please? I would really like to read up on this and get it straight in my own head. Er I mean of course the "friend's" head ... on whose behalf I am asking ... ahem. Thanks! DBaK (talk) 21:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'll see all of them as they existed at 1970 at this link. Valenciano (talk) 21:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And to back that up in text; "Finally, on 1 April 1974, under the 1972 Local Government Act, Tynemouth C.B. was abolished and became part of the newly-created Metropolitan District of North Tyneside" The National Archives - Tynemouth County Borough. Alansplodge (talk) 10:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, on 24 March 1974, the “County Borough of Tynemouth Terminal Celebrations” took place, in which the Tynemouth Scouts took part in a March-Past at the Town Hall (they certainly knew how to throw a party). Alansplodge (talk) 10:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both – absolutely nailed it. My friend will be most appreciative and interested! Cheers DBaK (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"You can't board our drug-trafficking boat! We are flagged Panama!"[edit]

How do flags of convenience rules work in practice, when the boat or ship in question is on the "high seas" (i.e. international waters), and a Navy ship suspects them of being drug runners?

I'm imagining something like this story. How would the Navy ship crew be allowed to board the ship when faced with a boat/ship armed with... a Panamanian flag?! Assuming the Panama registration is genuine, of course?

If it were that simple, surely drug-runners would have zealously exploited flags of convenience? What gives? Do the major "flag of convenience" states regularly give warrants for operations such as the one described in the article I linked to? OR, is there some "loophole" which allows this sort of military operation?

I know pirates and slave traders are deemed "hostis humani generis", and thus may be apprehended by any nation, even one that has not been attacked... is some similar rule or law of the sea at play here with drug-runners? Or something else?

(Note, my question is limited to operations in full-fledged "international waters". I'm well aware that in a country's territorial waters, or even its exclusive economic zone, it would likely have authority to carry out or authorize such operations). Eliyohub (talk) 16:13, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a US Coast Guard Auxiliarist; my understanding from the Active Duty folk is that drug smuggling is illegal under international law, so it doesn't matter what flag they're flying. This document seems to support that: https://www.unodc.org/documents/treaties/organized_crime/CNA%20Directory/English_ebook.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luisa Koala (talk • contribs) 17:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can the Coast Guard Seize a Vessel in International Waters? [Slate; 2001-05-15]:

"When a suspicious vessel is identified at sea, the Coast Guard notifies the State Department, which then gets permission from the vessel’s flag nation for the Coast Guard to board. (In the rare instances when permission is denied, the Coast Guard will generally monitor the vessel as it approaches U.S. territory.)"

Hmm. "An Act implemented and routinely used by the United States Coast Guard allowing them to board foreign ships on the high seas under allegations of drug trafficking." from the infobox sounds more like a description than a "long title". Is that the proper use of that field?

See also Limits of Coast Guard Authority to Board Foreign Flag Vessels on the High Seas [USCG; 1997-04-29]. -- ToE 17:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Long titles can look like that, but I'm pretty sure that's not the right one. Also the "public law" citation in the infobox is wrong. As may be the year of passage. There were only 664 public laws passed by the 99th Congress, and none have a title of "Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act" or anything resembling the supposed long title. Wow that's a bad article. It primarily relies on a student note in Fordham Law Review (there are 11 footnotes pointing to it).

I am almost certain it's Title II, Subtitle C of Pub. L. 99-570, 100 Stat. 3207. Formerly codified at 46 U.S.C. §§ 1902 et seq. The actual short name of the law is "Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Prosecution Improvements Act of 1986", it does not appear to have a long name of its own, and it was part of the "Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986". 69.174.144.79 (talk) 19:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do the treaties that banned cocaine, marijuana etc say anything about checking ships for them on high seas? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article 17 of the United Nations Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances of 1988 covers this [2]. The relevant paragraph reads: "A Party which has reasonable grounds to suspect that a vessel exercising freedom of navigation in accordance with international law, and flying the flag or displaying marks of registry of another Party is engaged in illicit traffic may so notify the flag State, request confirmation of registry and, if confirmed, request authorization from the flag State to take appropriate measures in regard to that vessel." You can read the rest of the article to see how boarding proceeds. Xuxl (talk) 00:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drug trafficking is not a violation of any jus cogens norm of which I'm aware, such that traffickers could be considered the kin of pirates and slavers. Hell, even whalers aren't considered that. I recommend reading about the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, which is a multilateral treaty that might discuss rights to arrest and search ships on the high seas, if there is any such right. But, it's important to note that in the international arena, the laws are more for the protection of the nation state than the individuals. If the U.S. Coast Guard arrested and boarded a drug trafficking ship on the high seas (i.e., outside any EEZ/territorial claims) the ship owners and seamen would have no recourse in the courts to claim that the seizure was an internationally wrongful act. The flag nation could complain to the U.N., and if it seriously cared (as it might if this were a common issue or involved conduct like the harassment of fishing vessels or passenger liners) the flag nation might bring an action before the International Court of Justice (or, if it were almost any nation but the United States, before the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea). 69.174.144.79 (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Side comment: this thread reminds me of a moment in the movie Lord of War where a gun-running ship is approached by authorities and changes things to disguise its identity. One of the things that's changed is what flag they're flying: as I recall, not so that they would be immune from being stopped, but just to look like a different ship than the one that authorities were seeking. Anyway, it turns out that their box of flags doesn't include the one they want... so they fake it by flying another country's flag turned sideways. I haven't seen the movie since it was in first-run, but I think the two countries were probably France and the Netherlands. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would need some very swift knife and needlework to convert a flag that way. Maybe you could make a small French flag from a big Netherlands one, but it just wouldn't work the other way around. Alansplodge (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they just hung it sideways and hoped that this wouldn't be noticed. --174.95.161.129 (talk) 11:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]