Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2024 February 26

= February 26 =

Presidential legitimacy and diplomatic relations
In 2020, US and EU announced they don't consider Lukashenko as the legitimate Belarusian president (while Josep Borrell added that the 2020 elections are fraudulent). Logically, this would entail severing/suspension of diplomatic relations with Belarus, because, if I understand correctly, you can't maintain relations with country whose leader is considered illegitimate (and by continuing relations the legitimacy is logically reaffirmed rather than denied). Why relations aren't generally severed/suspended with such countries on that basis? Brandmeistertalk  19:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Realpolitik? --Lambiam 21:03, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This opinion piece from Chatham House has some discussion of such issues [//www.chathamhouse.org/2023/04/rethinking-western-policy-towards-belarus/problems-western-policies-towards-belarus-2020-23]. It suggests the policy has been fractured and gives reason for this but I'd note it also suggests some countries have in some way limited diplomatic contact because of the issue, whether it's ambassadors leaving because they did not wish to present their credentials to Lukashenko (France), ambassadors for some countries and the EU being asked to leave, and ambassadors being rejected (US). I'm not really sure what the US ambassador planned to do i.e. whether they were going to present their credentials or refuse to. Our Foreign relations of Belarus and Belarus–European Union relations articles seem somewhat limited on recent events but Belarus–United States relations is a little better although still lacks info on the supposed ambassador being rejected. Nil Einne (talk) 05:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Boxing stance
My question is about the change in stance by boxers from the "knuckles forward, torso back" approach to the "knuckles out, torso forward" more popular today. Our article at Boxing provides a suggested explanation, albeit without a supporting reference. They suggest it was due to the addition of large boxing gloves (as opposed to bare knuckles): "Because less defensive emphasis was placed on the use of the forearms and more on the gloves, the classical forearms outwards, torso leaning back stance of the bare knuckle boxer was modified to a more modern stance in which the torso is tilted forward and the hands are held closer to the face." Okay, I guess, but I'm not sure I buy it. I don't know of any other martial art where the combatants take that odd knuckles forward stance. Even in cases where the hands are kept further from the head, the knuckles are typically facing out (i.e. to the sides so that the pinkie finger side of your hands are facing the opponent). Even if the addition of gloves is what caused the change what was the purpose of the knuckles forward affair? Matt Deres (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It’s a great question, and something I’ve been wondering about for many years. Hopefully, someone will have an answer. Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 2 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Is there any existing film footage of this stance, or is it only in still-picture posing? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any martial art that uses exactly that stance, but I know of some that use somewhat similar postures (torso back, hands at mid-level). These are to make it easier to block low attacks.  Were below-the-belt strikes allowed in boxing in the past?  The introduction of gloves may also be relevant, but not for the reason stated in the article.  Gloves make it easier and safer (for the attacker) to hit the head hard (without gloves, that can risk injuring the hand).   The modern stance seems to be optimised for protecting the head, whereas the old stance looks like a more general one. Iapetus (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)