Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 September 7

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

September 7

Places that are closer to foreign capitals than to their own capital

There are many parts of the world that are closer to the capital city of a neighbouring country than they are to the capital city of their own country. For example, many parts of the US South-West would be closer to Mexico City than to Washington, and many parts of Australia's north are closer to Port Moresby, Jakarta or Dili, than to Canberra. Ok so far?

Extending this, there are places that are closer to more than one foreign capital than to their own capital. For example, parts of Brazil are closer to almost any other South American capital than they are to Brasilia. And French Polynesia is politically a part of France, so it must be closer to dozens (? hundreds) of countries than to metropolitan France, where Paris is.

So to my question: What is the highest value of N for which a part of the world is closer to N foreign capitals than to its own national capital? And what is that place? Assume all distances are "as the crow flies". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I'd guess most of Asiatic Russia. Vladivostok; it is closer to Beijing, Seoul, Tokyo, Hanoi, Kathmandu, of course Thimphu, Manila, Bangkok, Yangon, Vientiene, Phnom Penh, Taipei, Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta, New Delhi, all those capitals of 'stans (like Ashgabat - doesn't that sound like the most Orcish place you ever heard of?), Pacific island capitals, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

(EC) May be one of the Overseas department of France? French Guiana would I think include most if not all of capitals of the Americas, as well as Africa but probably only a small number from Europe and may be none from Asia. Réunion would I suspect include most if not all of the capitals of Africa, some of Asia and probably more of Europe, but I'm not sure if it will include any of the Americas. As I understand the political situation with France, if you consider Paris the capital of the European landmass of France, it's difficult to argue it isn't also for the overseas departments. There may be similar situations for other countries but I'm not sure which ones. British Overseas Territories have a different political set-up so it's questionable if London is their capital. Related situation for the US insular areas. Although if you do include them, Guam appears to be closer to London than it is to DC. Probably the same for Northern Mariana Islands. There are the various Antartic and other southern places claimed by various primarily northern hemisphere countries like French Southern and Antarctic Lands, but many of these have no permanent populations and I think the claims are often not that well recognised. Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed you mentioned French Polynesia. If you include that, then you probably should include Guam etc. I think something like this is definitely going to win, but I don't know precisely which one. Guam for example would I think include most of Asia, but miss big chunks of Africa. I guess the big question is if you want to include the various Territorial claims in Antarctica, which includes Norway, the UK and France for example. (Norway may seem the most likely from these, but it will probably depend on the precise locations of the claims in relation to the country and other countries.) Un?/Fortunately for various reasons, there aren't any governmental claims of extraterrestrial real estate I believe. Nil Einne (talk) 07:30, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I think Reunion may take the cake for undisputed territory. It gets nearly all of Africa (Rabat is just a couple of hundred kilometers out of reach), all of the Middle East, Southeast Asia and even Jack's own Canberra. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Diego Garcia's ownership is disputed, but it's a looong way from London. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The Pitcairn Islands are a staggering 14,700 km from London, so most of Africa, all of Southeast Asia, the Americas, the Far East and Polynesia (naturally) are closer. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah Pitcairn Islands sounds a good bet. I was thinking it may be one of the UK ones but didn't check them as I wasn't initially sure if the Jack wanted to include them until I noticed the French Polynesia bit. This has been quite an interesting question as the primary reason I found the Guam distances was because I initially thought all the US territories were too close any way compared to the French ones but when I checked the distances I realised I may have been wrong. Nil Einne (talk) 12:09, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

The Russian pseudo-enclave of Kaliningrad is closer to the Baltic states than Moscow. LongHairedFop (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

A very closely related question: which country owns territory closest to the antipodes of its own capital? AlexTiefling (talk) 09:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

When people want to break the nitpick-version of the scheduled airline circumnavigation record, they go to Madrid and Wellington and dash to the exact antipode and back in a car. Maybe London and outlying minor New Zealand islands? New Zealand is barely the same country as England, though. It has the same head of state and is in a commonwealth and that's it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That's not how the monarchies of those two nations work. Mingmingla (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

What about before whatever that Westminster thing did in 1931 or the autonomization of the 1800s or whenever it was that New Zealand became independent? Intra-Commonwealth ambassadors still aren't called "ambassadors" because they're "not foreign" to each other, right? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Do territorial waters and exclusive economic zones count? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

New Caledonia beats Pitcairn, so the answer is France, except if you count Antarctic territories, then the answer is Norway. Akseli9 (talk) 12:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

British Overseas Territories are internally self-governing, with a Governor appointed by the British Government. Thus the capital of the Falkland Islands is Stanley and not London. Pitcairn is quite a bit smaller, but has its own legislature, the Island Council, and the Governor is also the British High Commissioner to New Zealand and actually resides in Aukland Auckland. The French have a different approach and make their territories Departments of France, so their national capital really is Paris. Alansplodge (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Then New Caledonia is dismissed too, since 1999. Akseli9 (talk) 13:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Few national capitals are located in or near the geographic center of their countries, most are located near a coast or on a major river, which is likely NOT the geographic center. That would mean that there are MANY countries around the world where a lot of their territory is closer to other national capitals. This gets even truer of large countries such as Russia. --Jayron32 17:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks all so far. I see that this is far from a simple question.
• For clarity, I distinguish between territories and integral parts of countries (politically speaking, if not geographically). The Pitcairn Islands are a British Overseas Territory, hence they have their own capital, and London doesn't come into it. (They're so remote from other places, that there's nowhere in PI that's closer to any other capital than to their own capital, Adamstown; hence their N is zero.) Same for the Falkland Islands et al. But French Polynesia is an integral part of France, no less so than Paris or Marseille - because the French government says so. This is exactly the same as how Hawaii is an integral part of the USA and Tasmania is an integral part of Australia. These places have local/state capitals, but the capital I'm interested in is their national capital (Paris, Washington and Canberra respectively). Also, there are more than one type of territory. The Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory are integral parts of Australia, but the territories of Norfolk Island, Christmas Island and others are not, so they're treated differently for the purposes of this question.
• Carry on, chaps. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the situation in Hawaii or Tasmania is that similar to French Polynesia. Hawaii is no different from any other state, the same with Tasmania. You're right that French Polynesia is officially an integral part of France according to the French government, but they are clearly still treated rather differently from others integral parts of France like Paris, Marseille or the overseas departments. They have their own President, are designated an overseas country, a local assembly and government and a representative of the French government in the form of the High Commissioner of the Republic in French Polynesia. (The states of the US and Australia have some of these, but so do all states.) They do sent representatives to the French Senate and French National Assembly and don't have special migration restrictions or citizenship (although some integral parts of countries do have that, e.g. Hong Kong and even clearer, Sabah and Sarawak in Malaysia). New Caledonia is of course even more complicated, but still an integral part of France per the French government. (This compares to the situation with the overseas departments, where as I understand politically, there very little difference between the government there and in Paris or Marseille.) I agree there are different types of territories, but all the examples discussed were where the territories are clearly treated rather differently from other parts of the country. Politically of course, the non integral parts of the UK and the US and other places often have about as much power as the integral parts of France like New Caledonia and French Polynesia. (Our Dependent territory says something similar.) Nil Einne (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and politically, another parameter to be taken into account to be fair, is that Commonwealth people are all subjects of a same queen, as the way to see things in the Commonwealth (theoretically), is that a country is firstly a person (a king or a queen) when for a republic, a country is only a territory. Akseli9 (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think that's right. Australia's Parliament consists of the monarch plus both Houses, but the country is not one person, not even theoretically. Under no circumstances do Canadians or NZers or Aussies or any other Commonwealth people - except Britons - consider London their capital. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 06:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course not. But during all this discussion from the beginning, there is this parameter I never forget, that the queen (or the king) is the chief of state (theoretically) of all these territories. This exists, this is official fact, and it indeed has to have a meaning, a political meaning, and also a personal meaning for everyone (either negative or positive or both or deep, etc). In a republic, you see territories as the only fact, then you must rely on the sole capital parameter, but with a remote central queen (or a king) who is theoretically your chief of state, you don't need to state clear statements about a capital city, because you hold (somewhere within your content heart or somewhere within your vague will to get rid of it) a kind of unclear statement about some kind of capital person. My point is, capital city vs. capital person. Akseli9 (talk) 08:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Then that is off-topic for this thread. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Refugees in Munich

At the risk of sounding like a bloody racist, I have to ask this question.

I just read from today's Helsingin Sanomat that central Munich, Germany is pretty much packed with refugees right now. The railway station, two exhibition centres, a school gymnasium and an industrial hall are full of refugees.

Now I've got nothing against refugees on a personal or ideological level. My question is a practical one. The situation will only concern me after nine months, in May 2016.

I plan on visiting Munich for BoundCon 2016 in late May 2016. I don't mind if I see refugees everywhere, but is there a chance that the whole BoundCon 2016 event in Zenith, Freimann, central-northern Munich might get cancelled because of the refugee situation? JIP | Talk 20:29, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

No. --Viennese Waltz 21:06, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! That's all I needed to know. JIP | Talk 21:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

--Viennese Waltz 21:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

What a wonderfully well-referenced answer. And JIP, I hope you don't go through life acting on the first opinion you get from an anonymous jerk (no offence, VW) on the internet as a way to handle all of life's tricky questions. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Ha, excellent Jack. Richard Avery (talk) 06:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)