October 6

Were the member countries of the Non-Aligned Movement actually non-aligned in practice during the Cold War or was that just for show? I mean Indonesia's Suharto and his regime was completely aligned with the West from the moment he exterminated more than 1 million people in the country and yet he was still elected chair of the organization from 1992 to 1995. And then there was Cuba which did not try to hide the fact that it was allied with the Eastern Bloc. StellarHalo (talk) 03:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Bandung Conference of 1955 was very serious, but as time went on, the Non-Aligned Movement welcomed members like Cuba, whose "non-alignment" was very questionable, and at it least partly took on the character of an alliance of dictators against democracies. It became much less important in world affairs after the end of the cold war, and today it's just another "G" group like the G-77 or whatever, and not the most influential one... AnonMoos (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear reference desk,

Over at Commons we are having a discussion on this depiction of Sybilla of Anjou. A tiny image of the whole page can be found by a Google reverse search.

Does anyone here have an idea what the original source manuscript could be? Felix QW (talk) 09:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a montage using a different scan, or version, than the version shown on Commons. The location of the manuscript could be in Belgium, but the Royal Library of Belgium resource locator does not (,SearchTerms:'comte%20thierry%20de%20flandres',SessionGuid:a3ae67cd-94df-4239-ad4a-8676eee3ddd6,SortField:!n,SortOrder:0,TemplateParams:(Scenario:,Scope:Library,Size:!n,Source:,Support:,UseCompact:!f),UseSpellChecking:!n),sst:4)) return a description similar that the one searched. --Askedonty (talk) 12:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the probable "S" on Sibylla's dress could be indicative of a personal work very posterior to the event depicted. --Askedonty (talk) 13:32, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The full page which you found by a Google reverse search , although blurred is suggesting that the source has been found worth publishing in a decent and commented reproduction once. We have no indication regarding that publication however except that by the appearance of it, if mainstream it could be dated any time starting from the 1970s.. or later. Regarding the subject itself, and if it is indeed historical per se, the graphical process and the writing could be at the XVIIth century. The manner of shading so casualy distributed with probably ink and pen is improbable before that era. Regarding the writing, see [1] for similarities, 16C and XXc for contrast. Perhaps user User:Card Zero, well versed in such aspects will be willing to confirm. And I had some hard time trying to get at a result worth it but possibly Google unless it was me can be pushed and a little bit schooled - he finally almost complied with Gravelines. Page 16 features a scene taken from the same context - whereas live models feature more probably two pages later - the overall POP value of the tiny image is now shown constrasting with all of its virtues. --Askedonty (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm scrutinizing the extended version from the montage. This comes from a Belgian genealogy site, l'Association de famille van Outryve d'Ydewalle, but the site is down and the particular page didn't get archived. But anyway the drawing looks 16th century to me. This is mostly a hunch, but I can make a couple of objective points: the writing has extravagant ascenders and descenders and looks to be quickly scribbled with a quill - the 12th century was all about Carolingian miniscule and I don't know if casual jottings and sketches were made in ink at all - and various parts of the drawing are labelled with arabic numerals. A diagrammatic drawing with labelled parts is a typically 16th century thing, not earlier than that, and Arabic numerals were barely used in Europe before the 15th century (and not at all before the 14th).

The numbers presumably relate to a key to the colors of Thierry's tunic. I also note the date 1146 in the top right, so this drawing must depict Thierry getting ready to depart for the Second Crusade and Sybilla being sworn in as regent in his absence.

He's holding a little church. That symbology means something, probably that he paid to build a church or cathedral. It's like the little model town being held by Saint Emidius in Crivelli's painting with the gherkin.

I found a view of the full page! It's somewhere on geni.com, but thus far I can only see it as a preview in Bing. Still, it's evidently taken from a reproduction in a German Dutch book, and the caption (if I squint) gives the source as Brussel, Koninklijke Bibliotheek, so yes, the original should be in the Royal Library of Belgium ... whatever it is.

Possibly something called "Memoriën van Anthonio de Succa" which seems to have been reproduced in 1977.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Must be it. I was just reading "Antoon de Sa.., historiograf van Albrecht en Isabella". Google did not recognize Antonio then yet. --Askedonty (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's available for download (in two volumes): Mémoriaux d'Antoine de Succa - the drawings are all in the back of volume II, and the one we need is on page 156 (of the pdf, not sure what the page is in the book).  Card Zero  (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your investigation and the great contextual background- the two of you are fantastic! I have also ordered myself a copy as an inter-library loan, so maybe I can make a higher resolution scan of the plate than the one on the kikirpa website. Felix QW (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! But those virtual wanderings through enluminated medieval landscapes at the KBR were really worth the experience. Good luck with the plate now. --Askedonty (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lets imagine a courtroom in a family court in some jurisdiction. For simplicity's sake, we'll pretend that the parties are representing themselves, rather than being represented by counsel:

WIFE: "I am petitioning for divorce from my husband."

HUSBAND (to the judge): "My wife doesn't really want this divorce; she loves me, and, were she free to make her own choice, would stay with me. It's just that her parents, who despise me, have threatened to disinherit her unless she leaves me!"

JUDGE (to the wife): "Is this true?"

WIFE: "yes! I love my husband, don't want to leave him if I had the choice, but I can't afford for my parents to cut me out of their will".

(end scene)

Ok. So there's the scene. Now, my question is, how would or should the judge react, and rule on either granting or refusing the divorce petition?

I gather that a marriage needs to be entered into under both parties' genuine free will, in order to be considered legally valid and binding. (The days when parents could legally forcefully choose their child's spouse are generally over, at least in the western world).

Now, a divorce, unlike a marriage, can generally be sought by only one party. BUT does that party need to be seeking the divorce of their own free will, free from duress or "undue influence"? Assuming the situation in the hypothetical courtroom above (where the petitioner was not disputing that a third party was the "driver" for seeking the divorce, and was applying pressure), would any judge see the law as allowing (or even requiring) him or her to reject the divorce petition? Has this question ever arisen? I'd be interested in answers from any western jurisdiction, or even answers on the legal theory.

(Yes, I know that in some jurisdictions, the husband could sue his father-in-law for Alienation of affections, but that's not really my question).

Disclaimer: I am not in this situation, nor do I know anybody who is, ergo this is not a request for legal advice. Post your disagreement if you disagree.

@John M Baker: I know family law is not your specialty, but given that you're a lawyer, I'm still curious if you have any musings to offer. @Neutrality: you, too, have shed light on legal dilemmas here before, so I welcome your thoughts. Others are invited to answer too, obviously. Eliyohub (talk) 09:56, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You ask three questions. It is not feasible to examine if this highly hypothetical issue has ever arisen in any Western jurisdiction. There are substantial differences in divorce law by country, even when restricting the attention to Western civilizations. In general, though, if the spouses do not agree, the requesting party needs to present a specific ground for the request. For the US, see Grounds for divorce (United States). Duress is not listed.  --Lambiam 18:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grounds for divorce vary by jurisdiction. In the United States, typically the standard is whether there is an "irretrievable breakdown" of the marriage. Often the parties agree that there is an irretrievable breakdown, and if one party says there is and the other says there is not, that is itself evidence suggesting there may be an irretrievable breakdown. But in the scenario you posit, the parties agree that there is no irretrievable breakdown, so it is not clear that the wife would be able to obtain a divorce.

Generally speaking, courts do not look to see whether a party was free of third-party duress when initiating a divorce petition. That would just be one more thing for the parties to fight about, with no apparent benefit to the process. If you look for "divorce" and "duress," you will see thousands of cases, but most of these have to do with whether a settlement agreement between the parties was entered into under duress. John M Baker (talk) 22:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

can it be said that rights come attached with interests and correspondingly a duty to show respect for the rights of others and that without which the rights become meaningless? Grotesquetruth (talk) 13:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It obviously can be said, since you just said it. But as a question at this ref desk, I find it a long bit off, since it is obviously more of a philosophical question than a factual question. --T*U (talk) 14:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My rights are always meaningful… your rights are meaningful until they conflict with my rights. When that happens the result is… politics. Blueboar (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and this conflict takes place when the duty/obligation to show respect towards the right of the other is failed yes? Grotesquetruth (talk) 16:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily “failed”… but when rights conflict, people do tend to see the preservation of their rights as being more important than the preservation of the rights of others. Blueboar (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For various approaches to such issues, see our article Philosophy of law. This specific principle has certainly been argued. The extended principle no rights without duties; no duties without rights was part of the preamble to the provisional rules of the First International, inserted by Karl Marx himself, but also embraced by prominent anarchist Errico Malatesta.^[2]  --Lambiam 18:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to find a linguistic map of the Carolingian Empire, preferably at its greatest territorial extent, showing the languages/dialects spoken there. I understand that we probably have just an approximate idea of the linguistic situation of that period of time. Thank you! 195.62.160.60 (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Linguae in Galloromania.svg gives historic boundaries of various language areas that roughly correspond to this time frame.  --Lambiam 18:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:AlthochdeutscheSprachräume962 Box.jpg gives historic boundaries of language areas farther east that roughly correspond to this time frame. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]