Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 September 3

= September 3 =

Negotiating Kentucky's admission to the Union
Kentucky was a part of Virginia until it became a separate state on June 1st, 1792. Although Kentucky was not admitted to the Union until well over a year after the admission of Vermont, nonetheless the act of Congress admitting Kentucky to the Union was passed two weeks before the act admitting Vermont. It was passed on February 4th, 1791. I recall reading (pardon the expression) "somewhere" that the reason the law passed in February 1791 specified that the new state was not to be admitted until June 1792 is that politicians in Kentucky wanted time to negotiate various details of their state constitution and laws. So my question is: Which details? And are there citable sources? Michael Hardy (talk) 03:13, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The constitution was finalized in December of 1791, and approved by congress in February of 1792, before final admission to the Union in June of the same year. It's given on the last page of this book chapter, which also goes into great detail about the debates surrounding Kentucky's separation from Virginia and quest for statehood. James Madison also wrote about this quest, but before statehood was achieved, so he does not address its conclusion. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @Someguy1221 : Thank you. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Minority governments in Canada must include the plurality party?
From Minority governments in Canada:

"In Canada's parliamentary system of responsible government, minority governments occur when no party has a majority of seats in the legislature, and the party with a plurality forms government."

Is this actually true? If I'm reading the sentence correctly, it implies that any government must include the party with the plurality.

If it's true, what happens when there are multiple plurality parties?

For a simplification, imagine four wolves and six sheep. The four wolves form the Wolf Party, while three sheep form Sheep Party A and the other three form Sheep Party B. Since the Wolf Party has plurality, it can force, by the force of law, one of the Sheep Parties into forming a minor government with them, even though it's against the Sheep Party's interest to do so. It just doesn't make any sense. 222.248.3.31 (talk) 08:04, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Canada does not normally have coalition governments. In your example, the wolf party would form the government on its own, without the help of any sheep party.  If the sheep parties cooperate to block the government's bills, the government's bills don't get passed.  If they block important bills like the budget (a scenario known as loss of supply), or if they pass a motion of no confidence, the government collapses and a re-election occurs.  --Bowlhover (talk) 08:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Seems like I got coalition government and minority government confused. 222.248.3.31 (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Also note in your example there is only one plurality - the wolves. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind a agreements can be in forms besides coalitions. Although this doesn't seem to happen in Canada either, it's possible for a minority government to have confidence and supply agreements with other parties ensuring that the government survives provided the agreement survives and the respective parties have enough seats. The other part/ies agree to protect the government and its budgets, but not necessarily any particular bill the government wants to push through. (I.E. The government needs to win the support of the other parties, be it the ones they have an agreement with or the opposition to get their policy through.) This protection could be in the form of supporting the government in confidence and supply issues, or simply abstaining in such issues, depending on the precise allocation of seats. (Of course, even without an agreement, a party may announce they will support or more likely abstain on such issues if some party, probably the one with a plurality forms the government.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The article is just wrong. I've fixed it to say "Typically, but not necessarily". In Ontario following the 1985 election, the Progressive Conservatives were reduced to a minority, but had a plurality. When they called for a vote of confidence after their throne speech, they lost. The New Democratic Party had agreed to support the Liberals without creating a formal coalition. With the consent of the lieutenant governor, the Liberals under David Peterson formed a government and held power for 2 years before a new election was called&mdash;in which they gained a majority and the NDP as well as the PCs lost seats. --65.94.50.17 (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * These are the rare instances where the crown has real, actual power. The Governer General and the Lieutenant Governers are usually figureheads but in cases like these they can force governments to form or force elections. Mingmingla (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I want to start a branch of the Wolf Party here in the US... because then I could form a Wolf Pac! Votez loup en 2016! Blueboar (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Coronation of Jean-Bédel Bokassa
Why did no world leaders attend the coronation of Jean-Bédel Bokassa of the Central African Empire? They were invited to an elaborate ceremony of a new and upcoming country. --Spoœekspaar (talk) 19:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * From Jean-Bédel_Bokassa Despite generous invitations, no foreign leaders attended the event. By this time, many people inside and outside the CAE thought Bokassa was insane. The Western press, mostly in France, the UK, and USA, considered him a laughingstock, and often compared his eccentric behavior and egotistical extravagance with that of another well-known eccentric African dictator, Idi Amin of Uganda.
 * (emphasis mine) I'll admit a few flags could be thrown in there, but it seems pretty clear to me that no world leaders wanted to be associated with him. I found a few California newspaper articles mentioning him, but they seem to all be printed after his coronation . You can look through List_of_online_newspaper_archives if you want to see what other countries may have been saying at the time. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fascinating that no one wanted to be associated with him, though. Even the most hermetic kingdoms usually have a few friends, if only for economic reasons. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * "Yugoslavia?" Is it non-sequitur week? Asmrulz (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I wondered the same thing . The only thing I could think of was that Yugoslavia did send an official delegation to the event, but there is nothing about that in the article. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 13:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * “Why did you say ‘Burma’?” “I panicked.” —Tamfang (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the header. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The Foreign Office did not send Idi Amin an invitation to the Commonwealth Conference.  When he said he was coming anyway, they told him he wouldn't be allowed into the building where it was being held, considering that the Queen would be opening it.   Come to that, he probably wouldn't have been allowed into the country.
 * I heard of a man who lived at Zurich Airport for two years.  I believe he originally came from Ethiopia - I don't know if someone eventually relented and gave him a passport. 78.145.16.226 (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * There isn't anyone answering that description at List of people who have lived at airports - the best-known person on that list (apart from Edward Snowden) is Mehran Karimi Nasseri, who lived at Charles de Gaulle airport for eighteen years. Tevildo (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This reprint of a report from the The Montreal Gazette, Dec. 2, 1977 shows that Bokassa's outrageous human rights abuses were already widely known well before the coronation. In 1972, "Bokassa personally supervised a bloody public beating of imprisoned thieves with rifle butts and clubs. Three died., 43 were maimed and all placed on public display. The international press was invited and when United Nations Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim protested the atrocity, Bokassa called him ‘a pimp’ and a ‘colonialist’." Probably not the sort of person you want to be photographed with. Alansplodge (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Waldheim, I take it that you mean. Presumably the two shared many happy recollections. 86.169.105.74 (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)