Humanities desk | ||
---|---|---|
< November 28 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 30 > |
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. |
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
When I was got told about it, I probaly heard it wrong. 80.254.146.140 ( talk) 14:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Which parable is this in reference to [13]? Dncsky ( talk) 16:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
. 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).
—— Shakescene ( talk) 07:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)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.
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. |
|
Humanities desk | ||
---|---|---|
< November 28 | << Oct | November | Dec >> | November 30 > |
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. |
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
When I was got told about it, I probaly heard it wrong. 80.254.146.140 ( talk) 14:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Which parable is this in reference to [13]? Dncsky ( talk) 16:27, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
. 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).
—— Shakescene ( talk) 07:05, 2 December 2012 (UTC)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.
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. |
|