Humanities desk
< June 23	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 25 >

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 24

Foreign relations of the Soviet Socialist Republics

Amendments to the Stalin Constitution granted each of the USSR's union republics the right to engage in foreign relations, and Moscow used this provision to get three votes (not one) in the UN: one each for the USSR, the Ukraine, and Byelorussia. Why did exactly two union republics become members? Was it believed that the rest of the world would reject an attempt to give membership to the other fourteen? Did higher-ups in Moscow have their own internal reasons for not requesting membership? Some other reason? Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a compromise between the Western bloc wanting 1 and the Eastern wanting all of them but I could be wrong. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine and Belorussia were well-populated republics extending over a significant land area, and with almost entirely Slavic populations. The most significant aspect of their U.N. membership was ensuring that Russia would be recognized as the successor-state to the Soviet Union with respect to permanent Security Council membership and veto power (something that Stalin could not have foreseen). -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a source to cite, but I remember reading that Stalin claimed that if Canada and Australia qualified for admission, then the UK had three votes. (Not really true since the changes to Dominion status after World War I, of course. It would have been a stronger argument in relation to the League of Nations, especially when it was first formed.) If they had three, then he wanted three. Even if this is correct I don't remember if he cited any other countries as proxies for Britain. --76.69.47.228 (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Amos Yoder's The Evolution of the United Nations System confirms that it was a matter of horsetrading. In return for making a concession in the matter of Security Council vetoes "the Soviets insisted on three votes in the General Assembly. Although it had first insisted on 15 votes, after hard bargaining, including a counterproposal by President Roosevelt for the United States to have a vote for each of the then 48 states, the Russians settled for three votes...The Soviet demand did not appear unreasonable to Churchill, who perceived England [sic] as getting a vote for each of its dominions." He also says Roosevelt refused an offer that the US get three votes as well. It would be interesting to know why. --Antiquary (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Making California and New York U.N members would be incompatible with the U.S. political system (Constitution: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress,…enter into any Agreement or Compact…with a Foreign Power") -- AnonMoos (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would be legally compatible if Congress consented. But it certainly wouldn't be looked on happily by the other states. ("Three seats on the Ruling Council!"... "Not three seats!" — Anyone else thinking of the ST:TNG episode "The Vengeance Factor")? --76.69.47.228 (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And yet according to John T. Flynn, admittedly not an unbiased writer, citing James F. Byrnes, admittedly not entirely in Roosevelt's confidence, Roosevelt suggested the three US votes himself and only changed his mind when Stalin agreed to them. [1] Perhaps all three seats in the General Assembly were to be for the US Federal Government? But doubtless there's no way of knowing precisely how the arrangement was supposed to work. --Antiquary (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no source for this being used as an argument, but it's worth keeping in mind that Belarus, Ukraine and Russia were the three republics that bore the brunt of the German invasion of the Soviet Union and this is were most of the fighting took place. — Kpalion^(talk) 13:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

conglomerates working together

Has AT&T, GE and Kodak worked together with one another in the past?142.255.69.73 (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I speculate that all longstanding major American companies have worked together at some point as subcontractors to the same prime contractor on large government projects. Often, one of the companies is prime and the others are subcontractors. -Arch dude (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All three worked on the Manhattan Project. For AT&T, it was their Bell Labs division, and for Kodak it was their subsidiary Tennessee Eastman. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Had my edit undone for no good reason

Hi,

From time to time I enjoy being able to contribute to wikipedia. Recently, I have looked into a controversial area related to the Bible. I wanted to make a contribution under the wiki title "King James only movement". This is one of the first of what I hope to be many contributions. In this case I just wanted to add why the movement arose and believe what I have added can be supported. Today, I added a reference in support of adding what I have added. I just want to make a contribution. Please let me know how to better do so, if this is needed. Kind regards, Mike193.251.39.102 (talk) 12:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you're trying to push your personal theology in King James Only movement. You should be raising your questions at the article talk page and/or with the editors who reverted you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The edits you made to the article King James Only movement were reverted because they did not follow Wikipedia's standards of neutrality and verifiability. Statements like "Mrs. Riplinger's work is excellent," or describing a critic of the movement as a "Non Bible believer and Pro corrupted bible world view scholar falsely so called" are simply your personal opinions, which do not belong in an encyclopedia. You also removed sourced claims from the article without giving a reason, which is generally frowned upon. The website you added in your latest edit was removed because it is not a reliable source, according to Wikipedia's guidelines. If you disagree, the best place to discuss this is on the article's Talk page. - Lindert (talk) 13:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(E/C) The place to discuss this is on the talk page of that article, here or on the talk pages of the folks you reverted you. Your initial edit inserted some very POV text, removed references, and had an unencyclopedic tone, so I can see why the other editors are treating your edits with a great deal of caution. Your most recent edit at least attempted to provide a reference to your claims, but it is malformed (what we call a "naked URL"). I do not know if [2] could be considered a reliable source or not, but assuming it is, the way to format references is discussed here (it is a little tricky, but there are short-cuts available). The essay at WP:But it's true! may also apply. Matt Deres (talk) 13:09, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And if something is "true" then there should be no problem finding valid sources. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:52, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not really accurate, as WP:But it's true! points out. If you witness some event, you know that it happened, but you can't necessarily find any references. Also, any form of speculation could possibly be true, and even something reported by a very unreliable source is not necessarily false. The point is that verifiability is the standard, not truth. - Lindert (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said, if something is "true" by Wikipedia standards. To verify means "to make true". If something is "true" but can't be verified, then it can't be in Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. - Lindert (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not absolutely true but you need something like an RfC to go against it. I had a case where a professor wrote something wrong in a textbook and I had to do that with someone trying to stick it in. There was nothing saying it was wrong - it was just wrong and nobody had written to say that. Dmcq (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but even in that case, people needed to be able to verify that something in that book was wrong, even if that verification did not involve citing a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. - Lindert (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In general, I'm noticing a specific fundamentalist anti-Catholic POV from the IP, not only at the KJV Only article but even their insistence that the Cathars were really just good Baptists, and adding "let God sort them out" twice to the Arnaud Amalric article. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See Landmarkism if you're not already familiar with the idea. Nyttend (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Main and Military Plazas, San Antonio, Texas

I was hoping someone could help me sort out Main and Military Plazas, San Antonio, Texas. The name seems to refer to two distinct plazas near one another, and clearly is an area of historical significance (presumably translations of the Spanish Plaza de Armas and Plaza Mayor), but all we have are two stub articles, Main and Military Plazas Historic District and Military Plaza, neither of which clarifies things much. We have a Commons category Commons:Category:Military Plaza (San Antonio, Texas), none that I can readily find for either the district or for Main Plaza, and the really impressive panorama File:Military Plaza, San Antonio, Texas - panoramio.jpg that does not look like the same place as the other images in its category, and I am guessing it is of the Main Plaza. Also, a place such as what is depicted in that image, and presumably having history dating back to when the area was in Spanish and then Mexican control of Texas over 175 years ago merits more of an article. Do we have such an article and I'm missing it? - Jmabel | Talk 18:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here it appears clearly they are two distinct places, and is also giving confirmation they are from the Spanish era. The two-tower church in the panorama picture could be the same than the church on this stereogram. I've given a 'read' at the San Antonio article in Spanish and I'm doubt there is much of literature about the ancient plaza. There was a governor palace, but rather than a gilded place it was probably as dull as most military governors palaces were able to be (particularly the colonial). --Askedonty (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

However Main Plaza, in the first link I've been giving is described as the one with the two-tower-and-dome church seen on File:Military Plaza, San Antonio, Texas - panoramio.jpg, so there is indeed some confusion still. --Askedonty (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]