Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 November 29

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 29

Schuyler A Donnella Retired secret service field chief. 1867?-1929 ss time frame

Being relevant to the "The New Deal" and Jacob Coxeys pleading with the Government "Coxeys Army". What Information could possibly have been shared with Operatives of that time era? This is virtually hard to answer. I have tried when visiting the National Archives in DC. politicians of the current days issues could use said information to think about the Immigration issue' facing our Great Country. And the continued growth of our Great Citizens (new and old). Thank you Tilde -- 02:38, 29 November 2012‎ User:Nicolausdonnella

Hebrew Publishing Company

I've made a title for an IP contributor's question. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 05:54, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

WHAT WAS THE FIRST BOOK PRINTED BY THE HEBREW PUBLISHING COMPANY ./ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.26.249.219 (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No idea but please don't write in FULL CAPS, it is the equivalent of shouting, and we don't like being shouted at. No one else here writes in full caps. Have you ever heard the phrase "In Rome, do like the Romans" ? --Lgriot (talk) 11:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you referring to the title of a recently published work of fiction, The Hebrew Publishing Company by Israeli author Matan Hermoni? -- Deborahjay (talk) 12:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

This question seems to be related to this post at a Yiddish forum; in context it seems to refer to an early or mid-20th century printer in New York. הסרפד (Hasirpad) [formerly Ratz...bo] 13:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Countries With Little or No State/Province Boundary Changes Over Time

Which other countries besides the United States of America did not have significant boundary changes in their states/provinces over very long periods of time? The boundaries of the U.S. states and territories have stayed almost the same since the Reconstruction Era to the present day in the United States, a period of 140 years or so. Futurist110 (talk) 07:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be excluding all the new states added since then. That is, territorial boundaries changed into state boundaries. StuRat (talk) 08:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. The territories changed into states, but their borders generally stayed the same--example, Utah Territory became Utah state with the same borders. Futurist110 (talk) 08:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Territorial evolution of the United States--This page shows that there were almost no meaningful territorial changes (the division of Dakota Territory, the creation of Oklahoma state) since 1868, when Wyoming territory was created and the borders of Idaho and Utah were finalized. Futurist110 (talk) 08:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears based on this (Territorial evolution of Canada) and this (Territorial evolution of Australia) that Canada's provincial/territorial borders haven't changed much since 1912 and Australia's since 1862. Futurist110 (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yet... Mitch Ames (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Let them keep trying. Futurist110 (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Didn't Newfoundland and Labrador become part of Canada in 1949? That must have changed the border a bit. Alansplodge (talk) 13:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No, Newfoundland just kept its existing borders when it joined and this did not affect any other provincial borders. However, the creation of Nunavut in 1999 changed the borders of the Northwest Territories. --Xuxl (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

But the addition of Nfld certainly changed the borders of provinces within Canada - it added an entirely new one. Saying additions don't qualify as changes seems like a very narrow definition. Matt Deres (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

[Incidentally, Newfoundland (known since 2001 as Newfoundland and Labrador) and Quebec continue to dispute their border.]Your Username 09:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs)

The boundaries of Northwest Territories changed considerably when Nunavut was split off in 1999. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

English counties seem to have had very little change in delineation for centuries, that is from shortly after the Norman Conquest until the 1974 boundary changes. Is that the sort of thing you are looking for? --TammyMoet (talk) 09:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Sort of, but I want it to be continuous to the present day. Futurist110 (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Also the boundaries of the countries within the Union are basically unchanged since the 1500s. The OP might like to clarify what they're looking for in a state or province - the terminology and governmental setups are different from country to country. Would, for instance, the German Länder count? -- Cucumber Mike (talk) 10:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the German Lander would count since they are the largest country sub-divisions for Germany. By states and provinces, I mean the largest sub-divisions of countries. Futurist110 (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The Partition of Ireland (1922) was a significant boundary change for the United Kingdom. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)x

English counties may have been less changed between 1066 and 1974 than many other sub-national divisions, but there were many changes during that period - there's a decent summary in historic counties of England. Even national boundaries are not entirely unchanged - besides the abovementioned partition of Ireland, Welsh Bicknor was in Wales until 1844. Warofdreams talk 17:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The U.S. date for fully modern boundaries shouldn't be any earlier than 1898: That year the Oklahoma-Texas border was finalized in its modern form (see Greer County, Texas) and the Newlands Resolution passed annexing Hawaii. There have been other more minor adjustments; the Delaware wedge wasn't resolved until 1921, and the U.S. adjusted its border with Mexico in the Boundary Treaty of 1970. So, if you want the absolute last date when all 50 U.S. state borders reached their modern form it would be 1970. --Jayron32 13:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say fully modern boundaries. I said that there were almost no meaningful territorial changes after 1868. Look at a map of the U.S. in 1868 and now and there won't be much significant changes. Greer County got added to Oklahoma (it was disputed before), Hawaii was annexed, and I don't really care about the minor adjustments, since they are very tiny and aren't visible on a map, even a large one. Futurist110 (talk) 18:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope - even later. The control of Lake Erie between Michigan and Ohio was finally determined in 1973. (See Toledo War#Subsequent history) The border between Ohio and Kentucky was redrawn by the Supreme Court in 1980. The border between New York and New Jersey was changed in 1997 around the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island. In fact, there was a small border change between North and Carolina this year [1]. Rmhermen (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

1980 also saw the US Supreme Court decide the border between California and Nevada (decision), resolving survey differences of a mile or so, over the entire boundary of the two states [2]. By my rough estimates, that's about 600 square miles, 10 times the size of the District of Columbia. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 17:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Although it seems a relatively short time compared with some of the above, for the whole period of its existence Australia's borders have hardly changed. It was legally created on 1-1-1901 (glad that date works in US and rest-of-the-world conventions) and, as far as I can tell, no significant external changes have occurred, and the only internal one of any significance would be the creation of the Australian Capital Territory (where the national capital, Canberra, is) in 1911. HiLo48 (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Surely the separation of the Northern Territory from South Australia, in 1911, was also significant? The above-linked territorial evolution of Australia shows various other changes - the most significant external one looks to be the addition of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Warofdreams talk 17:05, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

A quick overview of the boundaries of the Swiss Confederation and comparison to the current cantons seems to demonstrate that the boundaries within the Swiss confederation have been relatively stable since the early 19th century. The boudaries of the original cantons do not appear to have changed very much at all, but new cantons were added after Napoleon. I believe that this would apply to just about every country that Napoleon reorganized administratively in the early 19th century.Hfeatherina (talk) 18:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Would this apply to France? Futurist110 (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The last adjustment to the French National boundary came in 1947, see Paris Peace Treaties, 1947. Strictly speaking, France doesn't have anything like U.S. states, they have various levels of administrative divisions, including Regions, Departments and Communes, none of which has any statutory power like a U.S. state does. You can think of them as equivalent of Counties and Townships in the U.S., they are organized mainly to administer national laws, the elective assemblies at each level are like county "boards of supervisors" in the U.S. than legislatures. --Jayron32 23:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, Jayron. France would have regions as their largest sub-divisions, so that would be what I'm looking for in France, even though their regions function more like U.S. counties than U.S. states. Futurist110 (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I'm especially interested in the large counties (population of 50+ million) who fit my question. Futurist110 (talk) 19:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears that Japan's 47 prefectures have had stable borders since 1888 (see this article, p. 13 near bottom). - Lindert (talk) 08:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Are there any other similar countries? Futurist110 (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

"China proper", 1861

Today's map of Chinese provinces within "China proper" (i.e., the regions south of the Great Wall and the Willow Palisade, and excluding the far west) is not all that different from how they are shown e.g. on this map from 1861. The main visible differences are the creation of the four Direct-controlled municipalities and the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, plus a few moderate border changes (such as Guangxi getting sea access at Beihai). Most provincial names are exactly the same as they were in 1861, except that North Zhili (or what's left of it after the excision of the Beijing and Tianjin municipalities) is now Hebei, and Xingjing is Liaoning. I have to admit, however, that I am cheating a bit by offering this particular 1861 British map, because it shows Hainan and Qinghai as if they were fully separate provinces, which they actually weren't. Also, there were various short-living reorganizations both during the Republic of China era and the early PRC period, but most of them left no lasting legacy.

Many provinces' identities, especially in the south (Sichuan, Yunnan, Guangdong, Guangxi, Fujian, Zhejiang, Jiangxi) actually are many centuries old, and most of their borders have not changed much since then (because they mostly correspond to mountain ranges etc - borders between river basins). About 2/3 of the modern provinces in "China proper" already were there, often in fairly recognizable borders, by the mid-Ming (16th century). The main changes since, say 1580 (the days of Matteo Ricci) or 1682 (this map) are the split of Huguang into Hubei and Hunan, splitting of Gansu (and, later, Qinghai and Ningxia) off Shaanxi, and the reorganization of South Zhili. -- Vmenkov (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Why did Russia get all the Soviet Union's nuclear weapons?

I've tried to read through all the relevant articles, but can't find much about the circumstances behind Russia ending up with all the nuclear weapons after the Soviet Union collapsed. The only relevant information I've found is one sentence in Dissolution of the Soviet Union: "In international law, Russia was recognized as the successor state of the Soviet Union, and took complete possession of its arsenal of nuclear weapons". The Non-Proliferation Treaty is probably the argument the Russian side used, as it prevented the Soviets from transferring weapons to other countries, but it didn't directly address the actual situation of the Soviet Union breaking up into several different countries.

So, was the actual official reason based on the NPT, or was there some other explanation? Did Ukraine, Belarus etc just accept this interpretation, and not make any attempt to keep some of the nukes? Or was there some tough negotiation involved and they took some other concessions in return? How were the other countries, especially the US, involved - did they threaten not to support the breakaway states unless they gave up their claim?

59.108.42.46 (talk) 10:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Iirc some of the states basically said they don't want any nukes. They regarded them as an expensive useless unwanted burden. Roger (talk) 11:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Did you read Nuclear weapons and Ukraine? Essentially Ukraine got some security guarantees and various more tangible goodies. Henry^Flower 12:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You can see some info for Kazakhstan here [3] [4] [5] and Belarus [6] [7] [8] [9] here. Some general info here [10] [11] (second one is Jstor/behind a paywall). Ukraine appears to have been the primary one to consider going nuclear (see the other links, our article and [12]). According to all reports, none of the other SSRs (and therefore their successors) had many/any? nuclear weapons at the time of the breakup, so while they perhaps could have tried to produce them or refused to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and may have negoiated something before joining, their negotiating position was naturally far weaker. Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have just created my first from-scratch Wikipedia article, Lisbon Protocol, in response to your question, because I thought it deserved an article. Forgive me for the flaws in the article, I will go back and improve it later, though you are welcome to do so. Marco polo (talk) 15:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations and welcome to the club, Marco Polo. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, those are all really interesting, especially the NPEC article. I added links to Lisbon Protocol from Russia and weapons of mass destruction and Dissolution of the Soviet Union, because those were the first places I looked when I wanted to find out more about this subject. 59.108.42.46 (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me try to address the underlying cause. The Soviet Union was not at all equal, that was all just propaganda. It was basically the Russian empire renamed. So, it was totally dominated by Russia, and, as such, Russia controlled the nuclear weapons, and continues to do so. A similar situation existed in Yugoslavia, where Serbia dominated. Fortunately they didn't have nukes, though. StuRat (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Citation needed... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

For what? That the USSR was Russia plus a bunch of puppet states? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Now this is an interesting question -- was the USSR basically Russia plus a bunch of puppet states? If so, then there would be no realistic chance for someone from one of the other republics to get into a position of power, unless he effectively became a Russian (whatever that means). I think I recall that Stalin was a Georgian. Does the presence of non-Russians in high levels refute the Russian Empire claim? Don't know, just asking. Duoduoduo (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

You're right, Georgia was not a puppet state. That's why they refused to break away from the USSR after it fell apart. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Or: "But Georgia and the other states broke away from the USSR when they had the chance, suggesting that they viewed themselves as puppet states." I like this wording better. Duoduoduo (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

There's some difference between being a puppet state and being dominated by the larger power. For example, the US certainly dominates Puerto Rico economically, politically, and militarily, but that doesn't make PR a puppet state. They can, and do, make their own choices. But, if PR chose to leave the US, it wouldn't get any nukes, either. StuRat (talk) 22:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like doublethink or something similar...--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Not so much doublethink as poorly defined. An actual puppet state would be a nation which claims to be independent, but is really controlled by a foreign government. The Russian states weren't in that condition under the USSR; they had previously been conquered and incorporated into the Russian Empire. The Eastern Bloc states, however, would qualify, having been "liberated" in WWII but with governments installed by the USSR. Reference the reaction Stalin had when Czechoslovakia considered signing onto the Marshall Plan. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

So, in the modern world the former place of the Kremlin is now occupied by the White House, that's all the difference. Oh, yes, but of course, everyone is still freely allowed to continue believing and using all this doublethink rhetoric from mass media about democracy, "free" countries, "free" will, "free" politics and all these things et cetera.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Lincoln Avoiding the Whole Idea of Secession?

I seem to remember from history class that Lincoln took pains to avoid the notion that the states of the confederacy had withdrawn from The Union. Rather, he declaried the politicians of the south to be a rebel party that didn't have the authority to suceed. Was that the case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.41.227.201 (talk) 12:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Reconstruction Era has a lot of good information for you. --Jayron32 12:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think his position was that it is constitutionally impossible for states to secede unilaterally. Therefore, none of the states in the Confederacy had really seceded. Instead, each of those states was ruled by an illegal government. By voting for secession, those governments did not take their states out of the Union. Instead, they abandoned their lawful right to rule their states, since the states themselves were still part of the Union. Marco polo (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That's why he called it a civil war, while southerners called it other things. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

"The War to Keep our Slaves" was less popular than some. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The vice president of the CSA famously called it the "Cornerstone" of the Confederacy... AnonMoos (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That might come as a surprise to those who defend the Confederacy. Or maybe NOT. The south tended to call it "The War Between the States", which is a reasonably neutral way to put it. Some have called it "The War of Northern Aggression", which is obviously an aggressive statement in itself, but is not entirely untrue. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

The South didn't call it that much during the war. See Naming the American Civil War. (I love Wikipedia.) --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Obama as vice-president

Can Obama run and be elected to be the next vice-president? If the hypothetical next president resigns, having Obama as vice-president, this would be serving a third term. Is that against the 22th amendment? OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

It is an unsettled question. Vice President of the United States#Disqualifications notes "Scholars disagree whether a former President barred from election to the Presidency is also ineligible to be elected Vice President, as suggested by the Twelfth Amendment. The issue has never been tested in practice." However, the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution states "But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States." Which sounds pretty unambiguous to me; the 22nd Amendment makes Obama ineligible to be elected President again; but there are ways of reaching the White House without being elected. Hypothetically, Obama could run for Congress, get named Speaker of the House of Representatives, and then become President on the simultaneous death of the President and Vice President; this is not outright banned by any combination of the 12th and 22nd. Given the wording of the 12th, which merely says that no one constitutionally ineligible to be President may be elected Vice President; however there are technical loopholes whereby Obama could be President without being elected. Which is why the question is unsettled; there are too many ways to interpret the Constitution given the vague ways that the various passages interact (differences between being and being elected, for example). --Jayron32 13:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it appears that the 22nd Amendment limits total cumulative service as U.S. President to 10 years. Therefore, it would appear that the answer to the OP's question would be Yes, but only if Obama would serve exactly 6 cumulative years or less as U.S. President. This would mean that Obama would need to resign as President in January 2015 or before in order to become eligible to run for Vice President in the future. Futurist110 (talk) 21:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No, see below: Obama has been elected twice, so he's maxed out &mdash even if he were to resign today, he could never be elected again. As Jayron says, it's not clear that he couldn't become president again through some roundabout scheme, but he can't be elected to the presidency. --Trovatore (talk) 03:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I meant that it would appear that Obama would be eligible to run for VP in the future if he resigned from the Presidency on January 20, 2015 or before. Futurist110 (talk) 05:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

No, I think that's completely irrelevant. If you interpret the 12th amendment to mean that a termed-out president can't be VP, then Obama can't be VP, even if he resigns today. There is no 10-year limit. The limit is, you can be elected twice, except if you've served more than two years of someone else's term, only once. In the most usual scenario that adds up to a max of 10 years, because not many people run for VP after having been president, but 10 years is not the rule. --Trovatore (talk) 08:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Surely, if Obama resigned right now, he would only have served most of one term and would only have been elected President once, so would still be eligible to be elected either President or Vice President? Though I wonder what happens if he resigns (or dies, or makes it clear he doesn't want to be reelected) in between members of the Electoral College submitting their votes and the votes being counted, or in between the Electoral College vote and the inauguration? 81.98.43.107 (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. Ignore the "10 years" comment, because that's not in the Constitution. That's just some math based on what the Constitution actually says. If Obama were to resign right now, then run for President again, he would not qualify because he has already been elected twice. That means he would also not qualify to be VP. The "two years of a term" bit only applies to people who are appointed President due to the death or resignation of the current President. So, Biden could run twice if Obama resigned with less than two years left in his term. But Obama is right out.

You could make an argument Obama hasn't really been elected, because the Electoral College hasn't voted. But there's a snowballs chance in Hell the Supreme Court would go for it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is where the Supreme Court would come in, if such a situation arose. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

More likely they'd call it a political question and leave it to Congress to decide whether to accept the Obama VP electoral votes or not at the joint session.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

You could actually do it without killing anyone — see Gerald Ford. The 25th Amendment says nothing about the conditions of who the President may appoint, assuming Congress is down with it. Whether it is implied by the 12 Amendment or not is the Constitutional law question. --Mr.98 (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't really settle it. When Ford was appointed Vice President, he had not previously served as either Vice President or President, so it doesn't bear on the OP's question. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 18:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

And when Ford appointed Nelson Rockefeller as his own VP, the same situation applied. No small amount of constitutional issues are in the nature of "we'll worry about it when it happens". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talk • contribs) 03:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I could be wrong but I don't think Mr.98 was suggesting Ford was an example of someone who had previously served. Rather he was just pointing out no deaths were actually needed for a new President/VP to come about. Nil Einne (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Long time later but I can't believe I forgot to mention at the time this is fairly relevant because it's far easier to imagine person A convincing person X to become fake president for a day before they resign and vice president A becomes president A yet again. Whether the electorate & congress will ever be down with this, I can't say. The death scenario could happen by accident but that seems a bit extreme particularly considering how few have actually died and it being unclear why person A would become vice president anyway were it not for such a plan. (In some scenarios you may need prez A and VP Z being dummies for speaker/future+past prex X.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Any former two-term president could be appointed vice presidnt after half-way through the sitting president's term, since they can potentially serve up to ten years. μηδείς (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  No, nothing in the text says anything about ten years. Ten years is the inferred maximum, from the scenario where a VP takes over past the midpoint of a term, and is then eligible to be elected twice. If you're elected twice, you've maxed out; you can't be elected again, and you're also not eligible to be (elected?) VP. I don't think the limits *ever* kick in as long as you're not elected president — in theory, you could serve as president an unlimited number of times, as long as you start each of the terms as VP rather than prez. --Trovatore (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

  (ec) That's an unconventional interpretation, as "serve up to ten years" as a general concept isn't an operative phrase anywhere in the Constitution. The 22nd Amendment explicitly provides for "2 years followed by 2 terms", but only in that sequence. "2 terms and then..." is, as covered above, an unsettled matter. — Lomn 21:31, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Help with a Native American Myth

Someone told me once that they seen a documentary about ancient myths & legends including one about a native American (unsure which tribe that was mentioned) myth about the moon. It went something like they could remember a time when there no moon & over a period of time, possibly generations, what we call the moon today gradually got closer & closer until it sits were it does today.
There was also a part about a group of spirits or that came down from the moon & helped to teach the ancestors of that tribe, or something like that.
Does anyone know anymore about this or if it true (as in its an actual myth) ? 80.254.146.140 (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I found Wesakechak and the Origin of the Moon, but it doesn't really follow your plot. Alansplodge (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

When I was got told about it, I probaly heard it wrong. 80.254.146.140 (talk) 14:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Webcomic parable reference

Which parable is this in reference to[13]? Dncsky (talk) 16:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a rather oblique reference to the famous exclamation Eureka! by Archimedes.Hfeatherina (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. From the sounds of it there is a parable out there with this interesting profit sharing scheme. Also for future reference the Eureka story is untrue [14].Dncsky (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The king is something like The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs? 67.119.3.105 (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a specific parable here, so much as the general story of various kings requiring or receiving their weight in riches every so often. Apparently this has occurred (though fairly recently) though I suspect not as much as is reputed. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:22, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Same exact story told in a Garfield cartoon (king getting on a scale, getting fat, getting skinny, etc.). (source) So maybe there is some fairy tale, unless the Garfield is the original and the smbc folks took it from that. 20.137.2.50 (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, now I'm even more convinced there's a story behind this. Guess I'll keep looking.Dncsky (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

It's not a parable. Rather, it's a story so old, multiple cultures have versions of it. A simple Google search (origin "king's weight in gold") brings up multiple "origins" for the story, from the English, to the Norse, to the Indian (Eastern, not Native American). It's quite common for this kind of shared mythology: an ancient culture either recorded it, or made it up as a good story, and it propagated to various other cultures (who reworded it appropriately for their audience). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:56, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

18 party in Bangladesh with BNP?

When Khaleda Zia's BNP's Four Party Alliance became 18 party alliance? Where did they get the other 14 parties from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

They came as prizes in Cracker Jack boxes. --Jayron32 23:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Just for (incomplete) reference: 18 Party Alliance and Four Party Alliance. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

According to the Four Party Alliance article, the transformation came on April 18, 2012. --Soman (talk) 09:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Palestine 2012 UN Statehood Vote

Does anyone have a map on how various countries voted in the Palestinian statehood vote in the UN today? Thank you very much. I know what the result is, but I want to know how specific countries voted. Thank you. Futurist110 (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Can't find a list (much less a map) on any news sources yet, but this picture from Norways's UN mission which was retweeted into my timeline should help. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

See Annex II here. Marco polo (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

That's from a year ago?Dncsky (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry. Missed the year on that date. Marco polo (talk) 02:17, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I also found this map now:

. Here's the list, from a November 29, 2012, release on the General Assembly's own site:

Vote on Status of Palestine at United Nations

The draft resolution on the Status of Palestine at the United Nations (document A/67/L.28) was adopted by a recorded vote of 138 in favour to 9 against, with 41 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Gambia, Georgia, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Honduras, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, South Sudan, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Canada, Czech Republic, Israel, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Nauru, Palau, Panama, United States.

Abstain: Albania, Andorra, Australia, Bahamas, Barbados, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Cameroon, Colombia, Croatia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Estonia, Fiji, Germany, Guatemala, Haiti, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malawi, Monaco, Mongolia, Montenegro, Netherlands, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Rwanda, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Tonga, United Kingdom, Vanuatu.

Absent: Equatorial Guinea, Kiribati, Liberia, Madagascar, Ukraine.

The text of the press release (UN General Assembly press release GA/11317, 29 November 2012) has very extensive summaries, paraphrases and extracts of many members' statements supporting, opposing or abstaining on the non-member observer state resolution. Of course, public statements don't always reflect all the reasons behind a nation's vote, but those interested in distinguishing why neighbouring countries voted differently should probably start with those statements* before venturing into other unstated economic, strategic, ideological, racial or religious motives. The UN site also has archived video of many delegates' speeches, and probably of the entire debate, for those interested. See UN news story with videos and UN audiovisual library (Video requires Adobe Flashplayer).

* For example,

Australia’s representative said that its decision to abstain in the vote balanced its support for the right of the Palestinian people to have a State with its concern for the need for a negotiated two-State solution. The resolution would confer the status of a non-Member Observer State on Palestine, not that of a Member State. He was concerned the resolution might make a negotiated solution more difficult. He urged both parties to return to negotiations, and said that it was important that neither side take actions now that would jeopardize that goal.

The representative of New Zealand said that his delegation’s vote in favour of the resolution was consistent with its long-held support for the aspirations of the Palestinian people. At the same time, he fully supported Israel’s right to exist in security, free from Hamas rockets, alongside an independent Palestine living within clearly defined borders. Noting that the resolution just adopted conferred non-Member Observer State status, he said that the question of recognition of a Palestinian State was a separate issue.

He further expressed the hope that with today’s decision both sides would do whatever was needed to return to the negotiating table. Whatever the significance of today’s vote, “we must now turn to what happens tomorrow”, he said. It was regrettable that today’s solution had to be achieved by a vote at the United Nations rather than at the negotiating table, but that was the reality of the current state of affairs.

—— Shakescene (talk) 07:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Shakescene. Your link was extremely useful and beneficial. Amazing job. Futurist110 (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

The reference desk is not a forum for debate, political point-scoring and unsourced speculation.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It's interesting how a lot of the No votes and Abstentions came from countries that were the most heavily impacted by the Holocaust. Futurist110 (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Even more interesting would be to go state-by-state and try to figure out the "What's in it for me" if there's a separate Palestinian nation - and also to gauge their individual levels of hatred of Judaism. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC) You mean like Australia vs. New Zealand or Britain vs. France or Finnland vs. Lithuania or Japan vs. South Korea or Uruguay vs. Paraguay? To me, that map seems to be explained quite well by the level of partnership with or dependence on the US (as always, with possible exceptions). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Yeh, we wouldn't want to jeopardize that big contract with Mongolia. Meanwhile, the greens (apart from the Islamist states, of course) either haven't stopped to think about the consequences; or they don't care. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC) I think Schulz is more to the point here. The thing is that there are multiple layers here. The Holocaust issue is probably only directly relevant for Germany. As for the bloc of Eastern European countries either abstaining or voting no it is more important to note that they are today politically closer to the US and hostile to the PLO as PLO had close connections to the Soviet bloc during the Cold War. Antisemitism is definitely more widespread in Poland and Hungary (2 abstainers) than most Western European countries, so it seems to be a non-issue in the vote. --Soman (talk) 08:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC) You guys are right that pleasing the U.S. is probably more of a factor for Eastern Europe, but I wouldn't completely discount the Holocaust. Even if some people in your country are still anti-Semites, the governments would want to look good internationally and in the eyes of Jewish communities worldwide considering that millions of Jews were killed in these countries just seven decades ago. Futurist110 (talk) 08:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC) So if the yellows are kissing up to the US, who are the greens kissing up to? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC) I don't think that's a useful phrasing of the question. Most states may simply be of the opinion that granting observer status now will further the peace process, or is a natural step in the evolution of the situation, or that it is the right thing to do (tm). When a large majority goes one way, and a small minority goes the other way, we tend to try to explain the exceptions, not the general case. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC) Those who really want to understand why countries voted the way they did could start by reading United Nations General Assembly resolution 67/19. According to it, the U.K. " it would only support the motion on assurances of unconditional talk on final status issues," not because it's somehow connected to the US. Equally important seems to me the pattern of voting of states like Nauru and Palau, which seems to be always pro-US. It would require some deeper work beyond asking the questions about levels of antisemitism, relation to Nazi Germany in the past, present day partnership to the US. There are more than exceptions here and the voting was preceded by some debate. OsmanRF34 (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC) How about the green and yellow countries have a conscience while the red ones don't care about the suffering of a people under occupation and going against the tide of history and appearing as international pariahs so long as they continue to get political donations from their donors? Not saying that's valid, but it's as valid as the simplistic connection being drawn about the holocaust. I'm sure many people in Mongolia even gave a damn about Germany in 1944 when it was itself being fought over by the Chinese, Japanese and Russians. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:47, 30 November 2012 (UTC) I'd say it's the other way around. The green ones hate Jews and hate Israel, at worst; and at best, they don't care; but they're scared to death of getting on the bad side of Islamist extremists. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)