Humanities desk
< June 18	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 20 >

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.

June 19

historic poster

I'm interested in buying a copy of a poster. It's a "United We Stand" poster, which was created following 9/11. I've seen a copy of it on a few episodes of NCIS (TV series). Where can I get a copy of the poster?142.255.103.121 (talk) 06:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I know the poster, but you could try asking CBS Television Studios where they got theirs. Might be a longshot, but here is their contact info. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This search may help more quickly. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That one doesn't seem to have what I want.142.255.103.121 (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you find and share a picture of it from Google Images? It would be helpful to know what you're looking for. There are quite a few posters with that slogan. "United we stand"+"poster" gets me many, but I can't guess which one is yours. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The one I'm referring to has Old Glory beneath "United We Stand", or Old Glory is above that slogan.142.255.103.121 (talk) 12:45, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the words "Old Glory", or the American flag? If you mean the flag, that only slightly narrows it down. It's an extremely common element in these. I think you'll have to help yourself by clicking here and searching for "United We Stand" (in quotes) plus "poster" (with or without quotes). If it's there, you'll recognize it faster than I can link every one and ask if it's it. It might even be linked directly to an online poster store. InedibleHulk (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But maybe, is it this one? InedibleHulk (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nahl's Portrait of the Royal Family of Hawaii

In 1856 or 1857 (authenticating the date would be helpful too), Charles Christian Nahl created a portrait of the Royal Family of Hawaii on horseback that was exhibited in San Francisco. When and what was this exhibit? I see one source that said it was exhibited in the Mechanics' Institute Fair in 1857 but this New York Times article said that the painting was still being exhibited when Kamehameha V (a prince at the time) visited in 1860. How long was this exhibition? Also can anybody find out what happened to the original; source just said that it was lost with no info on who last owned it/saw it or what may have happened to it or other exhibition items like it after the event (maybe they were donated, destroyed, auction, etc). --KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What has happened to the Canaanites?

Hi
Along the bible at least 8 people are mention in Palestine alongside the Israelites. if we will take the reproduction of the Israelite to more than 10 million today, we would expect that Palestine will be home to 80 million persons. Where are the missing people? today there are only 10 million! Some will say that the Palestinians are descendant to the Canaanites, but according to local tradition they immigrant to the land only in the 7 century from Arabia. Exx8 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have to understand that when a country was successfully invaded (by anyone, in those times) people didn't disapear. They were either killed, during the battles or afterwards, because they refused to submit (option 1), or they were slowly absorbed if they accepted to submit and follow all the invador's demands, including religious (option 2), or they emmigrated to an other country that they could reach (option 3). And then over time they would either be killed there, or starve there, or be absorbed there. I suspect in the case of invasion of Palestine by the Isrealites and later by the Caliphates, all 3 types of events happened, but to different families / individuals whithin palestine. What is really hard to say is what percentage of each of the 3 options happened to the overall population, they did not keep records in those days. With regards to your estimate of the growth to 80 million people, it is wildly wrong: any people can only grow if they have enough room and land to grow food in order to feed itself. If not, they will either starve or reduce their fecundity. --Lgriot (talk) 10:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is another option, that of reverse acculturation. E.g. the Vikings in Normandy, or, a few generations later, the Normans in Britain, or, later again, the Mughals taking on Persian culture before conquering most of India. In these cases, the conquerors took on significant aspects of the local culture, sometimes more than remained of heir original heritage. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider the Canaanites as having a defined cultural identity as a nation at the time they were conquered and lost their sovereignty, the question of what happened to that "people" or nation (i.e., not as individuals and their genetic descendants) becomes - using User:Lgriot's terms:

(2) did they maintain their national and cultural identity under occupation?
(3) did they maintain their national and cultural identity in the diaspora?

We may recall Yossarian, the protagonist of Catch-22, who identified as Assyrian and lamented that his people no longer existed (or something of that sort). -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point granted, Deborahjay, I hope someone has some inforamtion on this and will contribute, I haven't read anything that was seriously discussing these people's identity retention after the many invasions of palestine. --Lgriot (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no guarantee that these 'peoples' were all the same size; if each of them was the size of one of the Twelve Tribes of Israel, then the total would be quite different to what you've assumed. And the Jewish population of modern Israel is a colossal amalgam of descents from different parts of the diaspora (including those already living in the area, of course); it's facile to treat the population as having grown smoothly from 1500 BCE to the present day. There's also reasonable archaeological evidence that the Canaanite religion had some elements in common with the Israelite one, so I'd consider it highly likely that a lot of them acculturated either to the Israelites (worshipping the LORD under several names, including El Elyon, 'the Most High God', by which the Canaanites called their Father/Creator deity) or to the Philistines (from whose name we get 'Palestine', and who worshipped gods including Ba'al, who had earlier been the chief warrior god of the Canaanites). And so on. Invasion by the Assyrians led to widespread devastation in 701 BCE, with almost every city in the area sacked except Jerusalem - most notably Lachish. And the Neo-Babylonians habitually deported the leaders and many others from the nations they captured; the captivity of Judah in Babylon is not a unique situation, and when Cyrus the Persian overtook the Neo-Babylonian empire, he freed all these various peoples. So even before the Greeks and Romans (referred to by Jewish writers as 'Kittim' - 'Cretans'), there have been plenty of opportunities for the Canaanites to identify themselves as members of other nations, to have been driven or dragged into other lands, or both. And then we have Greeks, Romans, more Greeks, Arabs, Turks, Latins, and so on stamping all over the place. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest answer is that ethnic identities are not "races" that remain distinct from generation to generation. People migrate and mix, adopt new languages, cultures and religions (or have them imposed on them), and new ethnic identities emerge. The length of time the Jewish identity has lasted is remarkable because it is so unusual. --Nicknack009 (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps all the old Canaanites moved to New Canaan - it would explain some of the wilder parties I have attended there. Blueboar (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The statement someone made that "They didn't keep records back then" is absurd on its head, childishly simplistic in its understandability yet completely wrong and disinformative. The very center of the literate world and record-keeping in Antiquity was, guess where? Canaan. The alphabet replacing logographic writing was developed where? Canaan. It was not some remote backwater of darkness and lack of records. The Bible itself is full of samples of such records. Yet amazingly, "thought leaders" on this board can create and promote sheer myths based on their own inexperienced perceptions and actually make incredible statements like "uh, duh, dey didn't keep records back den... da ha, da ha!" Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 13:16, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the insulting imitation (uh, duh, dey). I really appreciate your kind method of debating, Eulenspiegel. What I meant by "they" is "the winners of the war": the Isrelites didn't write down the number of people who emigrated and to which country, the number of people who stayed, and what tribe they were from, and the number of people that they killed. Or, that if they did write it down, they certainly didn't "keep" it for long enough for us to know. The losers (the Canaanites) didn't have a say in history, like is usual in ancient wars. --Lgriot (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, speaking of straightforward answers, has anyone mentioned the Punic civilization yet? They at least considered themselves to be of Canaanite stock, even as late as the time of St Augustine. Yes, there are copious records, and the records will still be there no matter how much they are waved off by revisionists who find them inconvenient to the "latest hypotheses" flavor of the week. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I agree with Lgriot's criticism of your tone, Eulenspiegel, you are right about the Punic culture. I had meant, in my canter through the history of the area, to mention the Philistine-Punic connection, but forgot. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the Phoenician-Punic connection? The Philistines / Sea Peoples were once considered a distinct ethnon from the Canaanites. Just trying to be helpful. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 14:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Both - that is, the Philistines clearly have substantial overlap with the Phoenicians, who in turn are very much a Punic group. And the Canaanites, being earlier and definitely not maritime, can be seen as distinct, but there's a degree of cultural transfer going on. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Phoenicians considered themselves Canaanites, and were certainly maritime. At the time of Solomon there was a Canaanite rump state in Phoenicia. Atlases like those of Colin McEvedy show this same state still exercising political control over Carthage for some time. They were Semitic, quite unlike the Philistines. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) That's a good point. The people we call the Phoenicians, in the region of Syria and Lebanon, were culturally and linuistically very similar to, and probably had the same ethnic identity as, the people we call Canaanites. No doubt many of the Canaanites who were defeated by the Israelites, if they didn't assimilate into Israelite society, may have moved north to one or other of the Phoenician city-states. The Phoenicians set up trading colonies in various places around the Mediterranean, the most famous of which was Carthage, which became a maritime power in its own right. Phoenicia itself was conquered by the Persians (at around the time they conquered the Baylonians and allowed the exiled Jews back to rebuild Jerusalem), and then by Alexander the Great, after which it was pretty throughly Hellenised. Carthage and its holdings were conquered by the Romans, and the city itself destroyed. (The Philistines may have assimilated certain aspects of Canaanite culture, but they were originally settlers from elsewhere.) --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:02, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. That. The Philistines and the Phoenicians both inherit elements of Canaanite culture; I was eliding some key details when I suggested that they thus had significant direct overlap. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the Canaanites who stayed in the region, in general overall terms, is that first they became Aramaic speaking, then they became somewhat superficially Hellenized (without adopting a Greek identity as such), and then they became Christianized, so at the time of the Arab invasions in the 630s, the majority of the inhabitants of the region were Aramaic-speaking Monophysites, who were often called "Syrians". As for an alleged Philistine-Phoenician connection, I'm not sure what that really means, since the Philistines were originally non-Semitic-language speakers who settled in the southern coastal plain (today's Gaza Strip and some adjacent areas), while the Phoenicians were Semitic-language speakers who inhabited areas today mainly in Lebanon, and whose activities had an intense maritime focus. I'm sure there were some interactions between Phoenicians and some Philistines, but I don't know what they particularly had in common other than inhabiting the same general part of the world and both being mentioned in the Bible... AnonMoos (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also an assumption that the Canaanites and Israelites were two separate groups. There is a strong argument that the Israelites were, at least in part, themselves Canaanites who adopted the god Yahweh. No invasion, just a gradual change of religion. This fits well with the archaeological and linguistic evidence. Dougweller (talk) 12:49, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between a Curriculum Vitae and a Résumé?

I have read both Curriculum Vitae and Résumé but they leave me even more confused than before. I'm South African, the term "résumé" is hardly ever used here - I have certainly never heard or read it here (except in foreign publications). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd always assumed that résumé was just American English for a CV. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A French word for a Latin expression = American English? Weird. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 11:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, a CV is what the Americans call a Résumé. We don't use it over here either. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the two articles are to be believed in the US a résumé is a more comprehensive document than a CV, while in the UK it's the reverse, a Résumé is the shorter form - but I'm not convinced. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you, because that's wrong. A résumé is shorter than a CV in the US, as well. Well, let's say, generally it's shorter — it's not like there's a single prescribed official format for either one, and some speakers would use "résumé" for everything, and some other speakers would use "CV" for everything. --Trovatore (talk) 08:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced either. I'm English and I certainly would see Résumé as an Americanism, and have never heard it used meaning short CV. -- Q Chris (talk)

I think I've heard it used in England as a form of 'management-speak', with a meaning somewhere close to précis or summary. For example "I've missed the last two meetings, can someone give me a résumé?" This is, of course, the original meaning of the word in English from the 18th Century - see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/r%C3%A9sum%C3%A9. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, there is actually a difference in American English between the words "curriculum vitae" and "résumé". It is described here in detail. Sneazy (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The definitions on that page would work in Canada as well. In short, resumes are for people applying for "normal" jobs; CVs are normally reserved for people applying for educational or consulting positions. There's grey areas, but that's a rough guideline. My resume would say I had X degree; my CV would list papers published, research done, etc. while obtaining it. Matt Deres (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In academia, some CVs can be very long, if they include every paper, poster, invited talk, etc. Sometimes people will ask for a "short CV", which usually means 1-2 pages of the best stuff. If only "CV" is specified, then you should include everything you've done. Length is not a distinguishing feature of CV vs. resume. So to sum up, in American English, "CV" is used by academics, who seldom use "resume," while "resume" is used by everyone else. Note my experience (and Sneazy's link, and Matt's support) contradicts the unsigned bullet point below. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for England, but in the US a CV is a one page bullet point document, while a resume is a complete two page (1-3) document — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 16:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is using the word for 'summary' for the longer document anything like calling the main course the 'entrée'? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took an outplacement seminar in 1991 (in England), and they specifically advised us to create a résumé of not more than two pages, as opposed to a CV of typically greater length. Up till then I had assumed that résumé was American for CV. --ColinFine (talk) 17:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It’s French. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:41, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's French for "summary". Google Translate seems to think that the French use Curriculum Vitae, but that's not always a reliable source. Alansplodge (talk) 07:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

résumé is always misspelled, while CV is rarely attempted to be spelled at all (and always mispronounced if not abbreviated). ¦ Reisio (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's nothing. Join me in wincing in discomfort at the usual attempt at pluralising it: "Curriculum vitaes". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's your position on curricula vitae versus curricula vitarum? --Trovatore (talk) 08:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A choice of either would at least indicate the user has thought for more than a second about what the words actually mean. My Latin is rusty, so I'd be guided by our very own article: "The plural of curriculum vitae, in Latin, is formed following Latin rules of grammar as curricula vitae (meaning "courses of life")—not curriculum vita (which is grammatically incorrect) and not curricula vitarum". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's one hilarious guy on That Forum We Don't Mention that keeps writing "curriculum vita", presumably because he believes it to be the singular of "curriculum vitae". A little knowledge is a dangerous thing... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure which forum that is, but anyway it strikes me as possible that you're misinterpreting his reasoning. A CV is sometimes called a vita for short, so maybe he's putting it together from that, rather than mangling the Latin.

Our article's remark is sourced to a Usenet newsgroup (one I used to frequent), and doesn't explain the reasoning. It seems to me that two CVs for a single person would be curricula vitae, but two CVs for different people could easily be curricula vitarum. --Trovatore (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see an argument for it. It's always possible to derive or contrive a context in which any random collection of words fits; curricula vitarum has more merit than just that, but it doesn't seem to be considered the default plural. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:59, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conservative regions in Canada where immigrants don't want to go after migrating to Canada

Is there a website or articles that says about a region being conservative, in a sense of politically social and economic, where immigrants, regardless South Asian, African, Arab, Muslim, Latin American don't want to go to live there? Okay, you know what? let's pretend I am a politician and I am visiting places in Africa, Asia, and Latin America and I promote immigration to these people come to Canada and I suddenly tell them don't go to places, cities or regions that are conservative or no-immigrant zone. They ask me what are their names and i tell them names. but before that, I need to know what are the regions that are conservative and not friendly to immigrants and don't like multiculturalism? So far I know that in British Columbia, the regions that are conservative are Interior, Northern, Fraser Valley, Richmond, Okanagan, Vancouver Island according to this web site page [Columbia 2013] and in Quebec, the conservative regions are Chaudiere-Appalaches and Capitale-Nationale according to [[1]]. Please answer the question. Thanks.--Donmust90 (talk) 18:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

You need data to do an analysis. You can look at electoral maps showing what districts vote for conservative parties (in Canada, this flip flops from election to election more than in many countries) but I don't know if anyone has a regional poll to gauge attitudes toward the specific issue of immigrants to Canada lately. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 18:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's wise to equate conservatism with antimulticulturalism. People vote conservative for all sorts of reasons. Our first black mayor was both a Haitian immigrant and a high-ranking member of the Conservative party. If you want to generalize, I guess it's somewhat safe to assume that any community where only white people live has a reason. Other than that, I'd say a non-white is fairly safe anywhere here. Of course, racists are free to travel, so nowhere's totally safe. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, the Wikipedia entry on this topic tells me that Canada is a very welcoming place for immigrants. So, if there is discrimination against immigrants, they may be protected by the law. Sneazy (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your premise about British Columbia's "conservative" (if conservative = anti-immigration) areas are absurdly wrong. Richmond's population, for example, is 60% immigrants an 70% visible minority, mostly Chinese, but also East Indian, Filipino and a good many other Asians. Vancouver Island and environs have elected Green Party of Canada politicians in both federal and provincial elections. Mingmingla (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are relatively fewer immigrants in the two regions of Quebec you mention (compared with say the Montreal or Gatineau areas), but its a function of the economy of these places, not politics, i.e. there are fewer of the types of jobs that immigrants typically occupy available in those regions. Although the percentage of immigrants has grown significantly in Quebec City and its vicinity in the past two decades, after lagging well behind Montreal. The Beauce (Chaudière-Appalaches) is a region of small towns and small businesses, somewhat out of the way, comparable to rural New England in many ways. Not a place towards which immigrants would naturally gravitate. And conservatism in Quebec is a lot less conservative than practically anywhere else in North America. --Xuxl (talk) 11:25, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, a lot of the most extreme anti-immigration attitudes are expressed where there are a lot of immigrants. And I haven't seen data but I can assure you that in Canada, anti-immigrant attitudes are sometimes held and expressed by .... immigrants. Hayttom 17:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did Mark Zuckerberg have to get a zoning permit to operate a business from his dorm room at Harvard?

20.137.2.50 (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are apparently asking "Was he legally required to get a business permit to operate a business from his dorm room?" If so, we are not permitted to answer, since Wikipedia Reference Desk is not permitted to give legal advice or promulgate statements of what the law in a particular place and time required, and this question should be "hatted" or closed to responses. Edison (talk) 22:35, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OP. Now the question is a factually answerable question of did or did not Mark Zuckerberg file a zoning request to operate a business from his dorm room at Harvard University. 75.75.42.89 (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have doubts as to whether such a question is answerable; that is whether he did nor did not file such a request may not be readily availible for us to point you do any sources. Of course, he either did or didn't (that is, it's a binary proposition, it must be one or the other), but insofar as I have doubts that anyone bothered to document whether he did or did not, it may not be an answerable question. --Jayron32 01:35, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty sure that if he did file a zoning permit request, the City of Cambridge documented that fact. If one was seriously interested in the question, a Freedom of Information Act request to the city would likely produce any relevant documents, if such documents exist. (Keeping in mind that there may be a limit to the length of time such records are kept by the city.) - That said, I also doubt that anyone besides the city would have documented the request. (Although there is often a publishing requirement for such requests, so it's a possibility that a local newspaper carries a public notice of the request, if one was made - though I have no idea if such a notice is required in Cambridge.) -- 205.175.124.206 (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No one here is going through the trouble to file a FIA request on your behalf to allay your curiosity. You're quite allowed to do so yourself, but you don't need Wikipedia's reference desk to do so. --Jayron32 02:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if the IP confused the issues - I am not the original poster, and am not suggesting anyone from the refdesk file a FIA request on the original poster's behalf. Instead I was suggesting that the original poster could file such a request if they though it necessary. -- 205.175.124.206 (talk) 18:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is a famous person and famous business we are discussing, it is quite possible that this has been covered in an interview or media story at some stage. Perhaps a web news search might produce something. Sussexonian (talk) 05:33, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a look at the zoning map for Cambridge Mass at [2] and as far as I can make out most of the university grounds are counted as business or industry so I'd guess the answer is probably no because he wouldn't have had to. Someone better at reading these things might know better. Dmcq (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Universities are businesses. People reside in dorms, but only people who have a business relationship with the school. Anyone else can't just rent a room (not during school months, anyway). ~~If the dorms counted as residential zones, they'd run afoul of Massachusetts' Fair Housing Act for discrimination. Seems to me, anyway.~~ I'm no lawyer. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking closer, education isn't one of the things landlords are prohibited from considering. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition-held towns in Russia

How do I find out which russian towns are currently opposition-held, following last year's local election? Russia is the biggest country in the world and it obviously must have a fair amount of towns in which the United Russia did not win. 20 minute research finally resulted in the discovery that the opposition has the major of Berdsk, but it surely isnt the only town in Russia, as the article itself says its a "rare defeat of United Russian", meaning there must be other examples as well. I would be very greatful if you could help me out. Thank you in advance. 109.121.42.128 (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Elections in Russia has a table showing the number of votes received by each party in that election, and a pointer to the Russian Electoral Commission's website which has complete results. Rojomoke (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the Communist Party of the Russian Federation does have quite a few mayors around the country, I think. --Soman (talk) 05:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]