Humanities desk
< January 13	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 15 >

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 14

9/11 what-if: Could the air defense have saved the South Tower?

In the early stages of the September 11 attacks, the hijacking of American Airlines Flight 11 led to two F-15 jets being dispatched from Otis Air National Guard Base. But they were airborne only at 8:53, seven minutes after the flight had already crashed into the North Tower. Not knowing that United Airlines Flight 175 also had been hijacked and not knowing what to do now, the F-15 flew elsewhere and consumed most of their fuel before landing again without having taken action. However, what if their commander would have had a sudden inspiration "The terrorists flew the machine into the North Tower - maybe the next target of their accomplices is the South Tower. Fly there immediately and take action to protect it!" The base is some 193m/310km away from 9/11, and they would have had some 9 minutes time to go there. As of maximum speed, the F-15 could have achieved that - but probably not without running out of fuel. Would they have had any chance? Maybe if the chain of information and command on the ground had been more effective and the planes would have taken off 5 or 10 minutes earlier? --KnightMove (talk) 10:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reference desk. As clearly stated at the top of this page, we don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. Shantavira|^{feed me} 11:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway my question directly refers to capabilities of the F-15 jets, for which I was hoping somebody could give competent analysis. Well, I still hope that, and if not, then not. --KnightMove (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on the F-15E gives its combat range as 687 nmi (791 mi, 1,272 km). The distance between the air base and the NYC WTC is less than 200 miles. --Lambiam 00:18, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is Masih Alinejad a Muslim?

Well this is not my question but a content deletion summary seem to doubt so. So, is Masih Alinejad a Muslim? or Whether she considers herself to be a Muslim?

Bookku (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Pakistan, "Masih" as a surname is a dead giveaway that someone is a Christian. I don't know if this applies to "Masih" as a first name in Iran... AnonMoos (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't assign religion to individuals based on their surname. Unless we have a source indicating that Alinejad herself says she is a follower of any particular faith, we aren't going to say one way or another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The user is not assigning religion in the article. But one user assumed her to be Muslim and added her opinion to another article of Islamic Feminism , while other user seem to doubt her Muslimness. Idk what are prevailing WP policies in this respect.

Even before considering policies which can be done on the article talk page; 'is any info on her religion available in public domain?' is the question before this forum. Bookku (talk) 17:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The WP article says she is born Masoumeh Alinejad-Ghomikolayi . Masih is just pen name or due to religious reasons does not seem to be clear. Bookku (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In Alinejad's book The Wind in My Hair, she quotes her father as lamenting, "How can I show my face at the mosque, where everyone knows my daughter is divorced but living in Tehran by herself?"^[1] This implies she was raised as a Muslim. Elsewhere in the book she relates how she got her unusual nickname, after a conversation with a new member of a book club she started:

Your name, Massy, should really be Masih, as in Messiah, or Jesus, as the Westerners say." "I'm not Christian," I said, confused. I hadn't expected him to lecture me about my name. "You don't have to be Christian to be a Masih."^[2]

Later, showing an application letter to a member of the editorial board of Hambastegi, the following dialogue unfolds:

"Your application letter says your name is Masih. The Messiah? Are you Christian?" he asked hesitatingly. "My name is Masoumeh, and I'm a Muslim." "I thought Masih was a man's name. So, did you pick that name for yourself or was it your father?" "My fiancé gave me that name. ...".

Of course, this does not establish that she currently self-identifies a a Muslim. --Lambiam 23:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is helpful for further discussion @ article t/p. Many thanks @Lambiam

Bookku (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

20 July plot

In Kolbe there are six awards. Can you use them and his ranks in order to find the real-life character? Thank you very much.

Nope… because fictional characters are not real-life people. The character was likely completely made up. Blueboar (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kolbe was a real-life character. You can search in all the sources about the plot, as "Sergeant Kolbe", "Feldwebel Kolbe", or "Oberfeldwebel Kolbe". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.251.38.117 (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

However, there is no reason to assume that any of the military awards ascribed on the fansite to the movie character were actually awarded to the historical person on whom the character is based. Surely, if the contributor based this on military records to which they had access, they would have included his given names, like was done for Stauffenberg ("Claus Philipp Maria Justinian Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg"^[3]) and most others portrayed in the film. --Lambiam 22:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then can you find his full name, military career, dates of birth and death in other ways? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.200.49 (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Contrarily to with the main character ( see link (...)Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg above), they (the site) are not including the Note: "He is a fictional portrayal of the real.. Feldwebel Kolbe." Before you ask, checking "all" other available references to Feldwebel Kolbe at Wolf Lair, it's remarkable that a source for the account about the encounter does not seem to have ever been precisely attributed. This is leaving it to infer that a stereotype could have been purely developped for the narrative even long before it was to become illustrated in fiction. We now would need to test a lot of different rank-name combinations, in order to arrive - but where? --Askedonty (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have now asked this over and over again (29 October 2022, 1 December 2022, 24 December 2022, 6 January 2023). If the answer could be found, it would have been given by now. One should think that the authors of the multiple books that have been written about the failed plot have also researched this; since they all identify the character only by his rank and surname, they must have come up empty-handed. I wonder though what the original source is of the detailed story. The oldest version I have found is from 1967, in which the author writes, "Bei der nächsten Sperre verweigerte der wachhabende Oberfeldwebel Kolbe die Durchfahrt."^[4] How did the author even know that Stauffenberg had a problem when leaving? (Due to the limitations of snippet view, I can't see if the book identifies any sources.) --Lambiam 00:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's this one, comes as a concrete paywall. --Askedonty (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page 86 has "[Bl. 9] An Außenwache »Süd« STAUFFENBERG erneut angehalten. Er begab sich daraufhin zum Wachhabenden, Feldwebel Kolbe, dem er erklärte, unbedingt sofort zum Flughafen zu müssen." Kolbe is ranked as Oberfeldwebel in the index.^[5] The abbreviation "Bl. 9" presumably means Blatt 9 ("Sheet 9), referring to some source document. --Lambiam 02:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the title of the book, we can assume that the document was a report that Kaltenbrunner, who had been tasked of finding out who the plotters were, sent to Bormann and Hitler. Perhaps the passage quoted above comes straight from that document. --Lambiam 01:17, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zorro (TV series 1957)

There are Spanish Royal Army's captains in 1820's Spanish California. Can you discover what their awards are: Garcia (ending of episode 30, a silver croix if I recall), Monastario (episodes 1-13), and Toledano (episodes 24-27). Thank you very much.

Um… Unless the series was set before the year 1821, they would not have been Royal Spanish Army officers, but Mexican Army. Mexico (which included California) was independent from Spain after 1821. Although I suppose they might have continued to wear Spanish decorations after independence. Blueboar (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't expect historical accuracy from a TV series for medals - or anything else for that matter. It is always possible that someone did research these things but it is just as likely that they used what was at hand in the prop department. MarnetteD|Talk 23:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Even if a fictional series, van you search for them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.207.217.68 (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That series was set in 1820, when the Spanish still ruled Alta California. Mexican rule began in April, 1822. Cullen328 (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only just last year? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I heard that we had a “crisis on the southern border”… but I didn’t think it was that bad! Blueboar (talk) 16:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please, can you help me to find them? Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.89.69 (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you find something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.9.137.76 (talk) 08:21, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only person in history who was free from all human weakness

In Voltaire's History of Charles XII (1731), he allegedly wrote that Charles was:

The only person in history who was free from all human weakness.

In trying to get some handle on what he could have meant by such an extraordinary claim, I've searched high and low for any discussion of it, to no avail. I've searched the online English translation for any words that might fit, but no go. It rates zero mention @ Wikiquote.

Yet it appears in The Oxford Dictionary of Biographical Quotations, A Dictionary of Military Quotations etc. I presume they check their sources.

Can anyone confirm whether it's an accurate quote, or if not, where it came from? Thanks, Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a fully accurate quote, but not far off. What Voltaire wrote in his Charles XII was C'est peut-être le seul de tous les hommes, et jusqu'ici le seul de tous les rois, qui ait vécu sans faiblesse; il a porté toutes les vertus des héros à un excès où elles sont aussi dangereuses que les vices opposés. ("He is perhaps the only one of all men, and up to now the only one of all kings, who has lived without weakness; he carried all the virtues of heroes to an excess where they were as dangerous as the opposite vices.") Source: [6]. You are of course free to disagree with that assessment. You can read Voltaire's judgement on him at greater length and in English here. --Antiquary (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the top of the class for a superb response. Thanks, Antiquary. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Slight quibble with the translation of the second sentence, which sounds a bit awkward to me. Translation is an art, of course, and a trade-off between various competing ideals; in the following, I've traded off some literal translation for a smoother overall flow, which, I hope, enhances meaning of the whole:

"He incorporated all the virtues of the Hero to a fault, to the point where such excess is just as dangerous as the opposing vices."

HTH, Mathglot (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 17:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waldo

According to our article Waldo (given name) there do not appear to have been any Waldos of note between Waldo of Reichenau who died in 814, and Waldo Colburn, born in 1824. Since them it seems to have established itself as a quintessentially American name, making its way into literature, film, and even rock music. What prompted its resurgence? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not an answer to your question, but don't forget the superb Heinlein short, Waldo. --Trovatore (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A little more germane to the question, but purely speculative: I wonder if it could have to do with the Waldensian church founded by Peter Waldo, a proto-Protestant denomination with some American presence (there's even a town of Valdese, North Carolina). --Trovatore (talk) 21:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to his article, Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803-1882) chose to go by his middle name (which derived from his father's great-grandmother Rebecca Waldo); he also used the name for two of his children. I don't know enough about Emerson (or America) to judge his notability at any particular date, but he is notable enough now to be the first Waldo that sprang to my mind. -- Verbarson ^talk_edits 22:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody's gotta say it: "Where's Waldo between 814 and 1824?" 136.56.52.157 (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Waldo Emerson was indeed very famous in his time and highly respected as one of the founders of a national American literary and philosophical tradition (see Transcendentalism). It's very likely that he is responsible for reviving the name's popularity. It was an American tradition in the 19th century - and into the early decades of the 20th century - to name children after "great men", hence the popularity of Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and Lincoln as first names. This also applies to "Emerson" as a given name. Xuxl (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's embarrassing. I completely failed to think of RWE, even though he's sort of one of my heroes and I suspect many of my views derive from the Transcendentalists in one way or another. Yes, that sounds more likely than the Waldensians, who have some presence in this country but were never really that visible; I don't know what fraction of Americans really have even heard of them. --Trovatore (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Waldo P. Johnson born 1817 was the earliest I could find not already noted. It appears the name was mostly a surname prior to the early 19th century. --Jayron 32 19:44, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever I hear the name Waldo, my mind jumps to Under Milk Wood. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Women as drag queens

Hello! Since 1972 I have quite a bit of experience on the subject of drag and drag queens. Have been following Wikipedia info about the subject(s) since 2008. I am still confused about some of the things I've seen in recent years. Here are some questions:

What is meant by the idiom women who are drag queens?
What is the difference between a wonderfully flamboyant, heavily made up, extravagant and entertaining woman and a woman who is a drag queen?
Is a women who is in a drag queen usually disguised as a drag queen with her biological gender a secret?
How do we identify a woman as a drag queen?
How do we identify, or do we, identify a drag queen as a woman?
Is a woman a drag queen only if she calls herself such?

Sincerely confused but far from antagonistic, SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

- Related side question - are there female performers who do male drag (Dressing as, and impersonating male singers for example)? Blueboar (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes; drag kings. Mathglot (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping: Serge, I hope you don't mind, I've changed your bullet icons to numbers, so respondents can reply to individual items if they choose; feel free to revert if you don't approve. Mathglot (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the numbers; these are mostly requests for clarification of the questions:

1. can you give the source for that? Are you referring to the WP article Drag queen?

Yes ("usually male") and at Female queen (drag) --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. Can you clarify: made up how, as a man, or over-the-top as a woman?

Heavily made up, flamboyant flirtatious woman, my favorite kind (I'm not sure of the idiom over the top) --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

3. Can you rephrase, not sure I understand; there seems to be an extra or a missing word in there. Are you talking about stealth?

Sorry, corrected now. It was a typo. I make a lot of them due to worsening eyesight. Are we expected to keep her biological gender a secret for her to fit in, or is her biological gender usually not a secret? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

4. Are you talking about a faux queen?

See 1. I mean criteria. What are the criteria for such identification of a woman as a drag queen? Your reply at 6 might suffice here as well as for 5. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

5. Is this different than #4, and if so, how?

Yes, different. What (other than biology) are the criteria for such identification of a drag queen as a woman? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6. That does raise the question of intent, which I personally think is a factor in determining drag. I would say yes. Put another way, can you imagine a situation where someone says to a woman, "You look like a drag queen," and the wide variety of responses one might get, depending on how the woman identified herself?

Thank you for your opinion. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HTH, Mathglot (talk) 23:57, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a little confusing with interpolated responses in my message above, but here are some further responses:

1. I can't find the expression women who are drag queens there, but from your quoted "usually male", I see what you mean, now. Since the counterpart to drag queen is drag king, you're asking (I think) "Who are the women drag queens"? (If I'm wrong about that, please correct me.) I suppose technically, since we don't have the term, drag person (or maybe, drag monarch ?) that covers drag queens and drag kings, that sentence in the article is slightly problematic. But, as long as we consider faux queen a subset of "drag queen" (which I think is a fair assumption), then the first sentence, including the usually male is correct; it just requires that faux queen be covered somewhere in the details of the article (as the WP:LEAD only covers the most important points, and the WP:LEADSENTENCE even more so), and since the #Terminology section does cover the subtleties of faux queens or bioqueens, I think all the i's are dotted, and the lead sentence is accurate.

Will respond to other points as I can, and hopefully, you'll get other responses as well. Mathglot (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. The term over the top means "highly exaggerated", and in this context, "..to the point of intentional bad taste". In that case, if you mean a woman made up in a highly exaggerated fashion, I'd say it would depend, like #6, on their intent; is it an intentional performance with a wink, intending to mimic a drag queen, or is it simply just a histrionic personality expressing their usual flamboyance? If the latter, then neither a drag queen, nor a faux queen. Basically, you'd have to know them well or ask them, to be sure. Mathglot (talk) 01:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! We are indeed having a bit of trouble communicating in two details. I do not know what a "faux queen" is nor do I (at my age) wish to learn any more new such terms. The term is redirected to an article on women as drag queens. And I do not appreciate some of your disparaging comments on heavily made up, extravagant, flamboyant women. Having worked and played with many such wonderful women, I know that at least they don't deserve any such put-downs. None of them are/were histrionic. "Bad taste" is a matter of environment, context & opinion, not an determinable fact. Frankly. I'm surprised at those wordings in your replies, which I otherwise find helpful. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I linked faux queen for you, so that you could follow up if you wished. I'm a bit nonplussed about your characterizing my reply as "disparaging", as there was no such intention; I merely copied the "flamboyant, heavily made up, extravagant" from your OP, and I was using it purely descriptively with no judgment attached, as I assume you were. If there's anything that's characteristic of drag queens (of any sex), "histrionic" and campy "bad taste" would certainly be two of them; they go with the territory, and there's no judgment involved there, either. However, I won't overstay my welcome, so at this point I'm content to let this thread go, and hope that you receive some feedback that will be more to your liking. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 05:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I expected an apology but only received more insults toward drag queens in general, and toward many women whether or not they are to be considered drag queens. You and I obviously know and have worked with very different people of either category, though indeed some drag queens as people are histrionic and show bad taste. There acts very often are, but not the people. No judgement involved? That claim, in plain English, contradicts what you wrote. I must continue to object to it. Sorry! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Serge, I think you are misunderstanding Mathglot's phrasing. I see no insults directed at drag queens as people, only colorful description of their performances. And I have performed as a female impersonator and worked alongside many drag queens (male and female, including transgender individuals). As for "women as drag queens", yes they exist. Terms for them include bio queen, faux queen, and fifi (female impersonating a female impersonator), among others. Faux queens are distinguished from ordinary women who dress and act in an extravagant manner by the fact that faux queens are performers. It gets a little harder to distinguish faux queens from mainstream female performers, but faux queens generally perform only in queer spaces.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK I learned English when I was a toddler and have taught the language for many years. The words "histrionic" and "bad taste" are offensive, in my opinion, when describing (all) drag queens and especially all women who are heavily made up and flamboyant and extravagant. I believe I have a right to my opinion. It's similar to your right to be very generous toward someone who uses such words to describe you. You not just your act, and many female friends of mine, living and dead. Best wishes, --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli occupation of the West Bank and International Laws

In the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Israel was able to annex 60% of the areas allotted to the Arabs in the UN Partition Plan. This outcome has since been accepted by the international community. Why do the international community treat the Green Line as the international borders between Israel and Palestine and consequently regard Israel's occupation of the West Bank as illegal? Many countries still refuse to recognize the State of Palestine and yet even they seem to agree that Israel is violating international laws in regard to the occupation of and settlements in the West Bank. Why did the international community readily recognize Israel's conquests in 1948 but not the ones in 1967? Especially when Jordan's annexation of the West Bank was never recognized and so this territory did not belong to any country after the end of Mandatory Palestine in 1948. StellarHalo (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, I assume you realize very well what a controversial topic the whole issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is, including being listed under ArbCom discretionary sanctions. Given that hundreds of books and thousands of scholarly articles have been published about this, may I ask you to narrow your question to something more specific? This subject is so broad, it's hard to know where to begin, and is also a honeypot for trolling and bad-faith editing, so to the extent that you can limit the scope, the better, imho. Mathglot (talk) 00:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The questions I would like an answer to are in bold. Also, the Green Line was never meant to be a permanent border. Why do the international community treat it just like they do a normal international border? StellarHalo (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Personal opinion] See De facto and De jure. Many participants in the international community (and we're talking about governments, since individuals like you and I have no significant power in such situations) may not agree with the current situation, but they either cannot or dare not try to interfere, because their primary obligation is to pursue the safety and wellbeing of their own citizens, and a secondary one is to promote these for other people in the world. Because of complexly intermeshing international alliances, antagonisms and sentiments, interference from third parties carries a significant risk of at best making the ongoing local conflict worse, and at worst setting off World War III. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 51.194.245.235 (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

StellarHalo -- the short answer is that in 1947 and 1948 the Arabs vehemently and violently rejected the 1947 UN Partition Plan, starting a war to deny the Jews any control over any territory at all, so that it would be legally inconsistent, not to mention brazenly hypocritical, to insist on the sanctity of the 1947 partition plan lines now (though that hasn't stopped some). The 1947 partition plan lines were very deliberately devised to be militarily indefensible, and could only come into effect with mutual agreement of the parties, since an economic union was an integral part of the plan. There's also a very noticeable tendency of the Arabs to vehemently reject any solution which doesn't give them 100% of their demands, but later on when their situation has worsened, they look back nostalgically at what they earlier rejected. In 1947-48 they rejected the partition plan lines, but after the 1949 armistice lines were determined, the 1947 partition plan lines started looking better in retrospect. From 1949-1967 they rejected the legitimacy of the armistice lines, but after the 1967 six-day war, the 1949 armistice lines started looking better in retrospect. In the 1990s any two-state solution would have involved fairly open borders, while any 21st-century two-state solution will certainly involve closed and fortified borders etc... AnonMoos (talk) 04:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like the mother in the tale of the Judgement of Solomon, the Arabs vehemently rejected the proposed partition. Unlike the mother in the tale, they did not present the counteroffer of conceding the whole to the other party. --Lambiam 12:50, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The evolving positions of the Arab and other Muslim countries are not surprising. What I don't understand is the position of the international community as a whole especially the UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice. On what legal basis do they assert that the West Bank is under illegal occupation by Israel? Have they ever engaged with the legal arguments of the Israeli government asserting that the West Bank is in fact a disputed territory as outlined in the article Status of territories occupied by Israel in 1967? StellarHalo (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

StellarHalo, I posed your question to OpenAi's chatbot, and here is their response:

The UN Security Council and the International Court of Justice assert that the West Bank is under illegal occupation by Israel on the basis of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. Israel's establishment of settlements in the West Bank is considered a violation of this provision. Additionally, the UN Security Council has passed numerous resolutions calling for Israel to withdraw from the West Bank and East Jerusalem, which it occupied in the 1967 war, and affirmed that Israel's presence in the territories is in violation of international law.

Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's a little discussion of general principles at Wikipedia article Right of conquest. The banning of the right of conquest did not apply to the immediate post-WW2 period, when the Soviet Union redrew borders and annexed with gusto in Eastern Europe, but after the 1940s it was held to be sacrosanct, even if sometimes applied selectively (Morocco was considered a violator in Western Sahara, but somehow China is exempt for Tibet, etc)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:05, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Power. The difference is power. Both militarily and organizationally. Morocco has virtually no power, China has a massive military and a permanent seat on the UN Security Council. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:14, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In 1951 and 1959, Taiwan (the ROC) held the "China" security council seat (though it was also opposed to Tibetan independence), and mainland China (the PRC) had a lot of soldiers, but was not really a major world military power (it had no nuclear weapons yet)... AnonMoos (talk) 05:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]