Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

• Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
• Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
• Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
• Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
• Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
• Note:
  • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
  • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
  • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
  • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

• The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

November 30

Successful assassination of Castro - what would it have accomplished?

Apparently at one point, the American government made great efforts to make Fidel Castro dead. Him personally, not the government he led. There were attempts to undermine and overthrow his government too, and even invade his country, but lets put that aside. I'm purely interested here in the attempts to kill him personally.

My question is, assuming such efforts had yielded fruit and Castro was killed, what would they have practically accomplished. Political assassinations of this sort, from what I understand, historically generally fail to accomplish the political goals of the assassin. Did Castro represent someone who was truly politically irreplaceable to his regime? Was his potential successor (most likely Fidel's brother Raúl) deemed any more amenable to U.S. interests at that point? (NOW, decades later, in a drastically different international geopolitical environment, is a different story). Was there the slightest chance that if Castro was successfully killed, his regime would somehow spontaneously come crashing down? Have any "alternative history" historians (those who speculate on what might have been) commented on what actually would have happened in the way of Cuba's political trajectory had Castro been successfully killed - and whether there was any realistic chance of it causing a regime or policy change in Havana which would have been favourable to U.S. interests? Or do they deem a successful killing of Fidel as something which, whilst perhaps emotionally satisfying to America, would not have really changed the overall situation? Eliyohub (talk) 15:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

There is some discussion here - though probably not very academic in tone - http://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/consequences-of-a-successful-castro-assassination.241302/ Wymspen (talk) 15:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, amateur as it is. It seems that others agree that the mere death of Fidel would have been extremely unlikely to lead to any real shift in Cuba's political orientation, unless they could then bump off Raul as well, and even then, would things in Havana become more favorable to the Americans...doubtful? The Soviets could have always helped a replacement get a proper grip on power, couldn't they? Eliyohub (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The belief in the U.S. was based on the notion that Castro was a totalitarian dictator whose power was based on a cult of personality more than as merely the current leader of a particular stable government system. --Jayron32 17:28, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

That he was a totalitarian dictator, I do not doubt. But other regimes based on personality cults, the biggest example being North Korea, have survived the death of the "cult leader", and the passing of the torch to a new member of the "cult family". So is there any realistic reason to think Cuba would be any different? Or was this wishful thinking? Fidel is now dead, the transition to brother Raul was smooth, so would it have been different then? Eliyohub (talk) 17:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It might be instructive to read about Ngo Dinh Diem and see how well that turned out. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It may depend on a couple important factors:

1) How early it happened. Early on Cubans were hopeful for free elections and many people who favored that were still there. Decades later, Cubans who had hoped for democracy had given up, fled or been executed. Put another way, there was no civil society left to take control.

2) Whether the assassination could be made to look like an accident. The US assassinating Fidel may have made enemies out of those who were opponents of Fidel, but nonetheless are even more opposed to their leader being assassinated by a former colonial power. StuRat (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Humiliation of Germany after ww1

How was Germany humiliated after ww1?24.90.72.195 (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

See World War I reparations which discusses all of reparations and concessions that Germany and the other Central Powers got at the end of World War I. --Jayron32 19:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Clarification: by "got", Jayron means that these requirements were imposed on the defeated countries, like saying that a sports team "got a penalty". --76.71.5.45 (talk) 23:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. I should have said what you said. --Jayron32 00:22, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

In addition to reparations, the Treaty of Versailles imposed substantial territorial changes, massively reducing the area of Germany. German people who had lived in Germany all their lives found that their homes were now in the new countries of Poland or Czechoslovakia, and that their new governments bore them no goodwill. There were also military restrictions which prevented the German Army from having tanks and artillery, the Navy from having submarines or large battleships and altogether forbade an air force. For a country used to being a military super-power, this was a bitter pill. Alansplodge (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, the blame of WW1 largely on Germany was humiliating, regardless of the reparations. In reality, the system of "entangling alliances" was largely to blame, on both sides, where successively larger powers were required to enter the war on the side of a smaller power who was at war, causing a tiny war to escalate out of control. StuRat (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

They weren't that innocent really; "At this time [July 1914] the German military supported the idea of an Austrian attack against Serbia as the best way of starting a general war" according to July Crisis#German attitude to war. Alansplodge (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Major academic journals

Hello! Could anyone help clarify as to weather or not Palestine Exploration Quarterly would be considered a major journal in the field of archaeology? If there is some way of quantifying the "level" of an academic journal in general, that would be helpful too. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 22:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Impact factor is a common means of journal ranking. --Jayron32 00:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Sites like this one show that PEQ is a very low impact journal. Most of its articles are never cited, and those that are cited, rarely so. For the most recent quarter, it is ranked as the 64th most impactful journal in the field of archaeology. These rankings of course mean nothing about the trustworthiness of the journal, but suggest that most of the work published therein is pretty low-profile. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

All that, of course, does not necessarily relate to whether content in such a journal merits inclusion in content here. While in general it probably would be the case that an article with contrary opinions in a higher impact journal might carry more weight, if eventually some reference work refers specifically to an article in one lower-impact journal as a source, but no articles in other, generally higher-impact journals, the piece in question could obviously still be used as a source here. John Carter (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

You also need to consider whether a journal has effective editorial control and peer review, or whether they allow anything to be published on payment of a fee. 81.134.89.140 (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments! I asked the question because it is the only sticking point in a deletion discussion. Basically it comes down to whether or not the article satisfies criteria 8 of WP:NACADEMIC (IE "The person is or has been the head or chief editor of a major, well-established academic journal in their subject area."). The consensus here suggests that it isn't a major journal, and therefore being its editor wouldn't grant someone notability. Gaia Octavia Agrippa ^Talk 01:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Remember that in deletion debates, the Individual Notability Guidelines are meant to serve as aids to finding likely reliable sources and are neither meant to be inclusionary or exclusionary (i.e. everyone that meets a criteria MUST be included, or everyone without a specific criteria MUST be excluded.) The ONLY criteria that should matter is do we have in-depth, reliable, independent information about this subject we can use to help us write an article. Merely making a check-mark on a list means nothing if we don't have any information to base an encyclopedia article around. When in doubt, revert to WP:GNG or WP:42. If the source material doesn't exist, the article shouldn't either. If the source material exists, use it to write the article. The silly lists of individualized criteria, like "The person is or has been the head or chief editor..." etc. can be useful to deciding if it's worth your time to search for more sources, but ultimately, if you can't find source material, what are you going to cite in the article?!? --Jayron32 02:11, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

December 1

good place to find election and polling results?

Is there a good place to find election results and exit polls (demographics etc.) about the 2016 US presidential election? Not too concerned about pre-election polls, but want stuff like state-by-state results for both the primaries and the general, with info like "how much of the under-30 Hispanic vote did Trump get in the Illinois primary" and stuff like that. I can generally find individual statistics like that in news reports with a search engine, but ideally I'd like a single site or database with everything, so I can crunch numbers without having to constantly search around. I can access some commercial databases through my local libraries if that helps, but probably not the really good ones. Thanks. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 02:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

FiveThirtyEight.com has switched over from predictions to post-election analysis articles. See [1] where they have several articles on analysis of the post-election polling data. --Jayron32 02:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks helpful. I'm still looking for raw numbers rather than analysis, but this is a start. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Data.gov is a clearinghouse for all kinds of data goodies related to the USA, they should have more coming online soon, but at present you can get some pretty good info on the 2016 elections [2]. ANES data center [3] may also be of interest. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

What is the name of the fallacy that works like this?

What is the name of the fallacy that works like this?
One example:
X and Y are Z.
X and Y are legal.
W is Z.
PS:W is illegal.
We must make W be legal.

Another example:
W is Z.
W is illegal.
X and Y are Z.
PS:X and Y are legal.
We must make X and Y be an illegal thing.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.92.128.26 (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that's the fallacy of Affirming the consequent. --Jayron32 11:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not a formal fallacy but an informal fallacy. Consider the same thing rearranged, minus the normative statement at the end.

• Cats and dogs are mammals.
• Cats and dogs live all around the world.
• Howler monkeys are mammals.
• [Implied first conclusion] Mammals share each others' characteristics.
• Therefore, Howler monkeys live all around the world.

I think you're looking at a matter of hasty generalization here. It makes me think of the commutative property of mathematics: it's seemingly equating W, X, Y with Z (making them identical to each other) instead of properly making them subsets of Z. This works when W, X, and Y indeed are equivalent to Z, but not when they're just subsets. Nyttend (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly a generalisation error, or arguably a hidden case of inductive reasoning. One can also see it as a case of false analogy. Just because X and Y are Z does not mean that all Z share all properties that X and Y share. 10 is a number. 10 is greater than 9. 15 is a number. 15 is greater than 9. (Unsound inductive step: Therefore all numbers are greater than 9). 5 is a number. Hence 5 is greater than 9...oops. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Of the formal fallacies, illicit minor fits this situation - we're going from a valid syllogism (Darapti) to an invalid one, by changing "some" to "all" in the conclusion. Tevildo (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

A more specific example of what I am talking about: 1-Cigars and alcoholic drinks are as addictive as weed.
2-Cigars and alcoholic drinks are legal.
3-So, we must make weed legal.
So, here he assumed that since those 3 things are equal, they should share the same rules, BUT, he automatically implied they should it should follow the cigar and alcohol rules, without telling why something that share this specific characteristic (being this addictive) should be legal instead of being illegal.
177.92.128.26 (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

As Nyttend mentioned above, this is hasty generalization (or secundum quid if you prefer the Latin names for this sort of thing). "Drugs A and B are legal, therefore all drugs are legal." Tevildo (talk) 17:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This may also be a case of unstated assumption (our article is not really very good): "(Unstated: Drugs are forbidden because they are addictive) - Cigars and alcoholic drinks are as addictive as weed - Cigars and alcoholic drinks are legal - hence we should make weed legal as well". Or, with a bit more convolution, an Ad hominem, per "People claim that weed should be illegal because it is addictive. But those same people accept cigars and alcohol as legal, although they are also addictive. Therefore these people are evil hypocrites and wrong, and we should make weed legal just to show them". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not hasty generalization, because the example is assuming alcohol is equally as bad as weed. The point of what I am talking about is not the fact he say alcohol and cigars are as equally as bad as weed, is the fact he is telling all those 3 things should be legal, instead of telling they should be legal because of reason W.

So, they say if X (cigars and beer) are Y (legal), so Z(weed) should be Y (legal). The thing is, why this is a more valid argument than saying that, if X (weed) is Y (illegal), so Z (cigars and beers) should be Y (illegal). The exact same kind of logic used to produce the same argument produced the second, yet he selected the first argument.
The non fallacious argument he should use is, weed, cigars and beers whould be legal because X OR weed, cigars and beers whould be illegal because X.201.79.60.129 (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

In effect, the argument is that they should have equal legal status, whatever that status might be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Let me try to understand this. You (201) are not concerned with the unsoundness of the deduction ("X has property A, Y has property A, X and Y both have property C, therefore Z, which also has property A, should also have property Z"), but (simplified) you are concerned with an argument "X and Y are equal with respect to Z, therefore both should have property Z", as opposed to "X and Y are equal with respect to Z, therefore both should not have property Z", when logically we can only infer "X and Y are equal with respect to Z, therefore both should have the same state of property Z". Both the first and the second of these arguments are, in general unsound unless one again adds an unstated assumption (E.g. "We have tried abolition for alcohol, and it does not work. Therefore alcohol should be legal"). In a real discussion it usually is useful to employ intellectual charity, i.e. not to build and refute a straw man, but to first understand the argument of the opponent (including unstated assumptions) before addressing it. This can often lead to a shared understanding of the conflict, and thus to compromise. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:01, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Round world in art

What's the oldest known (surviving) artistic depiction of a spherical world? Our article on Christ in Majesty observes that the image sometimes depicts Christ sitting on a spherical world, but it gives no dates, and since we know that the concept of the spherical world was known among the Greeks for some centuries before Christ, and since lots of ancient Greek artistic works have survived, I'm guessing that these images postdate the oldest surviving artistic depiction of a spherical world by several centuries. Presumably the polemic scientific works of men such as Aristotle and Eratosthenes included spherical-world depictions, but I'm particularly interested in artistic depictions without a scientific purpose. Note that a Google search wasn't particularly useful; its top hits were pages such as our article on Eratosthenes, which doesn't answer my question. Nyttend (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Would something like the Farnese Atlas be helpful? --Jayron32 17:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Crates of Mallus may also lead you places. --Jayron32 17:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Historiae Mundi: Studies in Universal History (p. 136) says that a globe appears on a Roman coin of 76 of 75 BC (perhaps this one?). It also gives as an example of a Roman globe in Commodus as Hercules, which is a bust supported by a globe and the signs of the Zodiac at the base, although our article says "The meaning behind these symbols has been somewhat debated since the discovery of the sculpture". Looking at the image in the article, it doesn't look terribly Earth-like to me, but I'm no expert. Alansplodge (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The globe on the Commodus statue is likely celestial sphere as seen in the Farnese Atlas I cited above; notably while it is a spherical map, it is a spherical map of the heavens and not of the earth, and thus not a "Globe" --Jayron32 17:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

You may well be right, but the source I linked suggests that the author believes it to be a terrestrial globe. It looks to me as though it's decorated with flowers, so I'm not wholly convinced that it's either. Alansplodge (talk) 22:37, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The two interpretations in the article suggests it's either a terrestrial globe with zodiacal figures indicating a significant month (in which case the flowers might represent terrestrial plant life, but why no animals or fish?) or a celestial globe with zodiac, in which case the "flowers" might be symbols for stars. At the sculpture's scale, more realistic star representations would likely be indiscernable: also, neither the artist nor its commissioner may have been particularly knowledgeable about astronomy. (As a possibly relevant aside: I'm short sighted, and without spectacles stars and other distant lights look to me like chrysanthemums, which are part of the Family Asteraceae, whose name is probably not a coincidence.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 176.248.159.54 (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a thought, what is the earliest depiction of the Greek god Atlas, for whom the representation of the map of the world was named? (Atlas had to carry the world on his shoulders, and all the depictions I've seen of him depict the world as a globe.)--TammyMoet (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

No, Atlas (mythology) had to carry the sky on his shoulders, which is usually depicted as the celestial sphere. Some of the later depictions of Atlas show him carrying the Earth, but these are not accurate representations of the original Greek myth. Atlas was made to support the heavens. The name of Atlas for the book of maps comes from Atlas of Mauretania, who is a legendary (i.e. probably not-real) Philosopher-King who is credited with as the father of Astronomy, and for whom Gerardus Mercator named his book of maps in 1595. The oldest still existing statue of Atlas holding the heavens up is the Farnese Atlas, cited above, but that is a 2nd Century AD Roman copy of a much older (now lost) Greek statue. --Jayron32 12:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Is there a name for the concept where?

The government has no population-based components above the state/province level. Each state gets equal vote(s) in the executive council or electoral college, or it's a parliament system, the legislative branch has equal seats per state, and the other branches are similar or chosen by one of the above. Not that I think it'd be a good idea, I just want to read our article on it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd say its one extreme case of a Federation - and the article is decent. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

It's a confederation. You've just described the Congress of the Confederation, the supra-state body of the United States under the Articles of Confederation; different states had different numbers of seats, but the number didn't matter, because the delegates voted as states instead of voting as individuals. Nyttend (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

But the CSA Congress had unequal delegation sizes. Did they vote as states? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The name isn't particularly relevant. Canada is a confederation, yet the federal government has more power versus the provinces than the US federal government has versus the states. The CSA's constitution was largely that of the USA, with some changes, most of which removed barriers to states' power (e.g. bordering states didn't need congressional approval for interstate compacts related to navigation) and a few of which either didn't directly relate to states' power (e.g. a line-item veto for the president) or reduced states' power (e.g. states might not prohibit slavery). Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Canada is a federation. The word "confederation" was used for the original process of forming this federation, I suppose because con- means "with" and the colonies/provinces were being federated "with" each other. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not sure it has a specific name, but you've basically described the operation of the United Nations General Assembly; each nation gets one vote regardless of population. --Jayron32 13:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Humiliation of Germany after ww2

How was the German loss of territory after ww2 any different than what happened after ww1? I thought the allies did not want to repeat that. I even think that they loss more territory after ww2 than after ww1. --Llaanngg (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Read German reparations for World War II; it's quite plain to understand that, though many historians consider the reparations of WWI to be excessive given German culpability in that war, the atrocities committed by Germany in WWII were astronomically worse than in WWI. Or maybe you forgot the Holocaust... --Jayron32 02:23, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

That's rather a harsh response, Jayron. German reparations for World War II does not provide a comparison of WW1 vs WW2 territorial losses, nor does it discuss the nexus of reparations and culpability. Llaanngg seems to ask a lot of questions, but does not seem to be a troll, and is probably well aware of the Holocaust. In view of the consequences of WW1 reparations, asking about the scale of WW2 reparations seems legitimate. My doubtless very ill-informed understanding of the WW1 reparations question was that they were viewed to be excessive, fullstop, rather than excessive w.r.t. Germany's culpability. So. Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't think the question has yet been well answered here or by the article you pointed to. --Tagishsimon (talk) 06:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Excessive can't be a full-stop concept. The concept "to exceed (something)" implies, in it's own sense, a limit or threshold which has been surpassed. The context for what defines an appropriate level of reparations can only be understood in the context of what the entity in question is being asked to repair for. In the case of WWI, the level of reparations leveled against Germany can only be called excessive if one defines the limits that one is expected to exceed. There is no absolute standard for what is excessive, merely that one compares what happened with what should have happened. Given the actions of Germany in the period 1914-1918, it was FAR different from the actions of Germany in the period 1939-1945, and as such, the expectations of reparations would be different. That is all. One cannot say that the WWII reparations are out of proportion because the WWI reparations were. The definition of excessive doesn't compare the one to the other, but rather each to the threshold of appropriateness in each case. In simpler terms, we can only define excessive based on comparing what was given to what should have been expected, and not what was given to what was given before. The second is not a valid comparison, it's apples and oranges. --Jayron32 11:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

What's your basis for saying Germany was "humiliated" after WWII? It was rather the opposite - the allies realized their mistakes following WWI and great strides were made to help Germany rebuild. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:54, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, there was the Morgenthau Plan - if the "allies realized their mistakes following WWI" is quite arguable. But the Cold War set in, and both sides of the former allies built there part of Germany up as a frontline state - hence Marshall Plan, not Morgenthau Plan, and hence the quite superficial denazification in Western Germany (where Nazi anti-communist sentiments fit with the new enemy) and the more thorough one in Eastern Germany (where they very much didn't). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Overall, Germany (the western part, anyway) was treated a lot nicer than they were after WWI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:38, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but that does not imply that the reason for that was a wider understanding and acceptance of what had gone wrong after WW1. In other words, this mostly was the result of Realpolitik, not idealism. Judgment at Nuremberg gives a good (if fictionalised) portrayal of the era, especially in the scenes outside the courtroom. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

It seems that the entire nation was punished after WWI, whereas after WWII it was more like scapegoating the most obvious perpetrators. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This rather misses the significantly different effects of the two wars in Germany itself. During WW1 there was little fighting on German territory, and little bombing. At the end of the war German industry and infrastructure was still more or less intact - though the economy was in a mess. In WW2 the allied invasions of Germany, and the massive bombing, left much of the country in ruins. The ability to make reparations was very different: that didn't stop the USSR grabbing anything it could, but the western allies realised fairly quickly that they had a humanitarian crisis on their hands, and it was going to be their responsibility to deal with it. Wymspen (talk) 10:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Another distinction, however, is the political turmoil in Germany was distinctly different following each World War. After World War I, the Entente powers imposed their peace terms on Germany, but did not involve themselves in the administration of the country. The German Revolution of 1918–19 that resulted from the collapse of the German Empire left the country in near anarchy and the political turmoil was at least as responsible for the nation's economic woes as was the reparations themselves. Following WWII, the Allied powers directly involved themselves in the post-war administration of the country and (at least in the case of West Germany) had a deliberate plan for transition to German sovereignty that assured a relatively smooth resumption of normal political control. The difference of Germany at the end of WWI and Germany at the end of WWII is that the former was in a state of open civil war, while in the latter case it was under relative peace during the martial administration of the Allied powers. --Jayron32 17:05, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

There were considerable border changes in the east, see Former eastern territories of Germany, Flight and expulsion of Germans (1944–50) and Flight and expulsion of Germans from Poland during and after World War II. Coincidentally, I recently spoke to a German lady who had been born in East Prussia but now lives in Colchester. Alansplodge (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

• It's hard to judge the intentions of "The Allies" after WWII, or even to recognise them as allies. The Western allies (and especially France) may not have wanted to "humiliate" Germany, even if purely from self-interested reasons of avoiding another "WWII began at Versailles" consequence. However the Soviets wanted revenge and plunder. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

  That's quite valid too. The motivations of the various voices at Yalta and Potsdam were not unified, and the motivation for the plans of reorganization of post-War Europe were often at cross-purposes. Even moreso that the agreements put in place were not even upheld following the war. --Jayron32 11:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The difference is that Germany by-and-large accepted responsibility for WWII in Europe. After WWI, many elements in Germany viewed the peace deal as illegitimate; the German right concocted the stab-in-the-back legend to claim that Germany had not really been defeated, but was stabbed in the back by Communists, socialists, Jews, and assorted other types in Germany itself, who supposedly sold out Germany for their own benefit. See also War Guilt Clause for some more background. The WWII Allied policy of unconditional surrender was intended to avert a repeat of this. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2

Another abortion question

Can the following two bits of information be verified? According to here Beginning of human personhood#Fertilization,the beginning it says "The indication of these objects itself seems to indicate that they are aberrations from nature,rather than the norm." And the next bit of info that needs to be verified is that the unique genetic identity of the zygote has been challenged. I'm not able to verify these myself. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 06:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The first statement is probably unverifiable. The truth is that the rate at which non-zygote objects are generated by human sperm-egg interactions is unknown. Estimates have been made, but who knows. You also get to the question of aberration and normal. It is not known why some zygotes do not implant. They may be defective in a way that is not understood. Now, these are actually probably more numerous than viable zygotes, so by a certain definition, the normal outcome of fertilization is spontaneous abortion, and live human infants are the aberration. As to the challenge of the unique genetic identity, it's worded in a clunky fashion, which is part of the problem. No one is challenging that a new zygote statistically almost certainly has a unique genetic profile as compared to its parents or anyone else who has ever existed. That is not being challenged. Rather, the writer of that statement is suggesting that people have challenged that feature as an essence of personhood, on the basis that individual gametes are also genetically unique, but not argued to be people. It would be trivial to produce a reference for the fact that gametes are also almost always genetically unique, but what you want is a reference to someone making an argument that this matters in the context of a personhood/abortion debate. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:40, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Conchita Wurst: "Gehen Sie Wählen!"

Is there an online transcript of the German text for this video message by Conchita Wurst calling on Austrian citizens to vote (again) in their country's presidential election and presenting the significant differences between the two candidates? I'd also appreciate a transcript of the English translation (appearing as subtitles in the clip to which I linked here). This is to expand the Conchita Wurst page here and for WP projects in other languages. -- Deborahjay (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

There are tools to download Youtube subtitles. Just google 'download youtube subtitles' and pick your favorite. I've never have any need for doing it, so I can not recommend a concrete one. --Llaanngg (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The YT clip has both english and german subtitles--click the sprocket (settings) icon to choose which language you want. Both sets of subtitles appear to have been done by humans, unless machine transcription has gotten a heck of a lot better recently. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 22:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I checked the German subtitles, and they were most certainly done by a human being, because in addition to hearing the words correctly and using correct spelling, grammar and punctuation, they also prove they understood the content by shortening the text a bit without really changing the message (for example, within the first 20 seconds the subtitles omit the words "dazu" and "in Zukunft", and replace "so viele Menschen als möglich zur Wahl gehen" with "möglichst viele Menschen wählen"). So it's not a verbatim transcript (just like subtitles in movies). ---Sluzzelin talk 23:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

European Coups

In post-WW2 Europe, which countries have experienced changes of government via coups / armed rebellions / revolutions, etc.? I think a number of the Eastern European countries rebelled against Communist control, and there have been wars in some of the Balkan countries. I don't think there have been coups or armed rebellions in any of the Western European countries since WW2, but I'm not entirely sure. Dragons flight (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Carnation Revolution, a bloodless coup in Portugal in 1974.Loraof (talk) 17:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

If you count a war of secession, there's the Kosovo War. (Sorry, you already mentioned the Balkans.) Loraof (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The coup known as the May 1958 crisis led to the collapse of the French Fourth Republic and the return of Charles de Gaulle with the formation of the current French Fifth Republic. A second coup, by many of the same leaders, also sought to depose de Gaulle three years later (see Algiers putsch of 1961), but it failed. Still, the 1958 coup toppled a Western European government and installed a former military leader. Checks all of the boxes for a successful coup. --Jayron32 17:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

(E/C) We have articles at List of coups d'état and coup attempts by country and List of coups d'état and coup attempts, which is chronological, to help your research. Matt Deres (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

That's very helpful. Thank you. Dragons flight (talk) 14:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

There were a couple of military coups in Greece, in 1967 and 1974, and one in Cyprus in 1974. See Greek military junta of 1967–74 and 1974 Cypriot coup d'état. --Xuxl (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Spanish transition to democracy (1975) after the death of Franco, involving an attempted coup followed by elections. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• Of the revolutions that ended Communism in Europe, only the Romanian Revolution was actually a violent coup of the type you're imagining. Czechoslovakia had the peaceful Velvet Revolution (and Velvet Divorce), the Baltic states had the Singing Revolution, East Germany had the Peaceful Revolution, Poland had Solidarity and first democratic election, and so on. There was an attempted Communist counter-coup in the rump Soviet Union, but that failed and essentially led to the formation of the modern Russian Federation. Smurrayinchester 10:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The violence in Lithuania came from the Russians, the BBC reported 13 Lithuanians killed and 140 injured on 13 January 1991 as Soviet troops attempted to retake the state radio station in Vilnius. [4] See January Events (Lithuania). Alansplodge (talk) 13:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

ID cards

In the USA, are ID cards issued by a state government considered the property of that state, or the property of the identified person? --M@rēino 20:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I just looked at my California drivers license and it doesn't say anything about it belonging to the state. But I know that the police will confiscate it if they find you driving around with a suspended or expired one. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

When I first got my driver's license, the Rules of the Road stated that the police taking the license was "in lieu of bail". Driving is a privilege rather than a right, and each state makes its own rules about that document. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

My Virginia license is like California's, and ditto with my Ohio license; when I moved here, I phoned the license bureau back in Ohio to ask if I had to return the driver's license, the license plates, etc., but the deputy registrar told me that I was free to keep them. I'm guessing that the confiscation thing is exactly that — confiscation — and not merely repossessing a piece of state-owned property, but I can't prove that. Nyttend (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

December 3

Ruins of the Gambier Islands

I am trying to find a list of the ruins and churches (the names of the churches especially) from the mission era on the Gambier Islands like St. Michael's Cathedral, Rikitea? Rikitea#Landmarks lists some but doesn't go into the details.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Stories that use the counterfactual that ww2 never happened,or happenned much later

Are there any stories that use the counterfactual of ww2 either never happening at all,or ww2 happening much later?Uncle dan is home (talk) 07:50, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The Red Alert series of games begins with a time traveler assassinating Hitler in 1924. The writers then assume that with such a change, WWII basically still happens, but it's the Allies (including Germany this time) fighting the Soviet Union. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The Worldwar series has aliens with Desert Storm-era equipment invade Earth during WWII. Rmhermen (talk) 18:48, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

An enormous number. The genre is alternative history. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 23:28, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Century Rain has the invasion of France failing, Hitler being deposed, and the war ending before much of significance happened. Iapetus (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

December 4

Whitewings -- street sweepers and duck uniforms

In parts of the US, people employed as street sweepers used to be called "whitewings", apparently because they wore white duck uniforms. Why duck uniforms? Also, does anyone have any photographs of this uniform? I can't seem to find anything relevant in Google Images. Equinox ◑ 01:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

[5], [6], [7] and more generally [8] --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I get the impression that 'duck' is a style of jacket --- our Sailor suit alludes to 'White duck jacket, trousers and vest made up the summer uniform'. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It's the woven fabric, etymologically not related to the bird, see cotton duck. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, that article lists uses according to the weight of the fabric: "No. 2 (17 oz): hatch paulins, No 3 (16 oz): heavy-duty bags, No. 4 (15 oz): sea bags, No. 5 (14 oz): heavy work clothes...". It's similar to a kind of heavy white denim. Alansplodge (talk) 10:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You can still buy classic white duck trousers in the US, although they seem to be aimed more at the Ivy League than street sweepers. Alansplodge (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Aqueduct named after which women?

I'm working on a wikidata project looking at bridges named after women, which has led me to a number of aqueducts bearing women's names (Perhaps the last two are not women's names). The couple I checked did not specify for whom they were neamed. I'd be obliged if anyone could match the aqueduct to a named person - a link to the person's article would help. (or confirm that they're generic female names rather than named for specific women). thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• Aqua Alexandrina
• Aqua Alsietina
• Aqua Appia
• Aqua Augusta (Naples)
• Aqua Augusta (Rome)
• Aqua Claudia
• Aqua Julia
• Aqua Martia
• Aqua Tepula
• Aqua Traiana
• Aqua Virgo
• Pont d'Aël

Most of them are not women's names, but eponymous adjectives taking the feminine form dictated by the feminine noun Aqua. In most cases, the articles you linked give the (male) namesakes, such as Severus Alexander, Appius Claudius Caecus, Claudius, ... ---Sluzzelin talk 02:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Bummer. Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing the individual articles and external sources, there only seem to be one or two that might have been named after women. One is the Aqua Virgo: This page and this page both says it's named after "a girl" who showed people the spring that produced its water. However, this page, on the same site as the last one, also says it might have been "named after a statue of a water goddess... near the source". The other is the Pont d'Aël, whose name I couldn't find anything about the origins of. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Although Aël is the name of the nearby village, according to our article. Alansplodge (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Bridges named after women

I'm working to ensure that Wikidata has data on as many bridges named after women as possible. Right now we're up to 70 or so such bridges according to this query. I am listing, below, bridge names where I'm uncertain as to the women after whom the bridge was named - presuming there is such a women. Any help in identifying the women much appreciated. Please also post details of any bridges not found in the query results, and I'll add them (the display dropdown allows you to turn the map into a table). Eventually I'll put a wikipedia list article together to cover these. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• How about:
  • Annabrücke
    • Regarding Annabrücke: Judging from the distance of less than one kilometer from this bridge to the Filialkirche Heilige Anna in Saager, the bridge might be named after Saint Anne, but I found no direct reference linking the bridge and the saint. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Barbara-Rohrbrücke

No clue from the internet but Saint Barbara "is invoked against... all accidents arising from explosions" so very apt for a gas pipeline bridge. Alansplodge (talk) 17:19, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• • Bethany Bridge
  • Carolabrücke (Bad Schandau) - Carola of Vasa?

Deutche Fotothek calls it the Königin-Carola-Brücke or "Queen Carola Bridge", so it seems most likely. Alansplodge (talk) 20:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• • Lady Wimborne Bridge - Might this be Cornelia Henrietta Maria (née Spencer-Churchill), Lady Wimborne (1847-1927), Wife of 1st Baron Wimborne; daughter of 7th Duke of Marlborough?

Yes, see British Listed Buildings - Lady Wimborne's Bridge . Alansplodge (talk) 16:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• • Mariánský most?

"The proximity to the Marian rock gave the name of the new bridge and largely determine its shape". Marian Bridge

But how was the rock named? "Maria" can be a man's name in some European languages. The same comment applies to the other listings with similar forms, unless their actual origin is known. --76.71.5.45 (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• • Marienbrücke (Passau)
  • Marienbrücke (Wolfratshausen) - is this named after the Maria & Child statue, or is there a person behind the bridge & statue? Are all of the Mariens alluding to the mother of god?

This 1875 document shows that the bridge predates the modernist sculpture, which must represent the dedication of the bridge. Couldn't find anything to confirm that though (BTW, God usually merits capitalisation in Wikipedia). Alansplodge (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• • Marienthalbrücke
  • Pont de Sant Joan (Cardona) - which Saint Joan?

Sorry, not "Saint Joan" but Sant Joan which is Catalan for "Saint John". Alansplodge (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• • Ponte D. Maria

Most likely Dona Maria I of Portugal. "D. Maria" seems to be the accepted Portuguese abbreviation for "Queen Maria". The bridge was probably built a few decades before her reign (nobody really knows) but she was the very first Dona Maria. Alansplodge (talk) 16:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• • Queen Elizabeth Bridge. Which one - I or II?

Almost certainly the latter, since it was constructed in 1966. Alansplodge (talk) 10:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Or maybe it was after Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Good point. My opinion is that if it was anybody other than QEII, there would have been some attempt to disambiguate the title. I've had another search of Google hoping to find details of the opening, but no luck. Alansplodge (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• • Pont de la Reine Jeanne - Jeanne de Laval (1433-1498) or Jeanne Ire de Naples? Both are in the see-also of the article.

One place I didn't see highlighted on the map when running the wikidata query service you linked to are the bridges in Puerto Madero, such as the Puente de la Mujer, the Puente Peatonal Macacha Güemes, bridges named after Cecilia Grierson, Rosario Vera Peñaloza, ... ---Sluzzelin talk 04:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for those. I'm running through a spreadsheet of possibilities I culled from wikidata's 16,000ish bridges ... I'm not up to the Ps, but I would not have recognised any of these as named after women ... I'll make sure they get linked to an appropriate named-after value. All suggestions welcome. The report now stands at 62 long, so progress is being made. --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:26, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

So to clarify / check: Puente de la Mujer (Women's Bridge) is formally named for E. Rawson de Dellepiane - R. Vera Peñaloza - A. Villaflor - M. Güemes - C. Grierson per [9] - do I have that right? --Tagishsimon (talk) 04:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't read it as that specific ... some names of streets in Puerto Madero were changed to be named after famous Argentinian women in the 1990s (see for example this La Nación article), but I couldn't find what prompted that. My impression (mainly from English and Spanish WP articles) is that the Puente de la Mujer merely reflects this rare hommage without being limited to the women who gave the other bridges and streets their name. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

How about the Mary Jane Cain bridge over the Castlereagh River at Coonabarabran, New South Wales?Djbcjk (talk) 04:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Djbcjk. I've added it to wikidata - https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27954391 - can you tell me, is it at 31.27161°S 149.27643°E / -31.27161; 149.27643? --Tagishsimon (talk) 05:09, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are the coordinates for Coona; whether they're the exact coordinates of the bridge I don't know. Photos, etc, of the bridge, year of commissioning, etc, can be found by googling "mary jane cain" + bridge, and biographical data on MJC can be found on her wiki page. Djbcjk (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

[Banned user's posting removed]

There's another Queen Elizabeth II Bridge in Belfast, right next to the Queen's Bridge, named after Queen Victoria. In the Republic of Ireland, there's the Mary McAleese Boyne Valley Bridge in County Meath; and the Anna Livia Bridge (named after a fictional woman from Joyce's Dubliners) and the Rosie Hackett Bridge, both in Dublin. --Nicknack009 (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

There's the Queen Elizabeth Quay Bridge in Perth, although if you're being pedantic, it's named after the quay which is named after the Queen.

Our Victoria Bridge disambiguation page lists 25 bridges around the world which are directly or indirectly named after Queen Victoria.

And there's St. Mary's Covered Bridge in Pennsylvania. Alansplodge (talk) 11:11, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Also Queen Anne Bridge in Maryland. North Queen Anne Drive Bridge in Seattle is a bit more indirect.

In Curaçao, there is a Queen Juliana Bridge and a Queen Wilhelmina Bridge, not to mention Queen Emma Bridge which is known as the “Swinging Old Lady”. Alansplodge (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Queen Margrethe Bridge is in Denmark. There was a Maria Theresia Bridge (Maria-Theresien-Brücke) in Vienna that was replaced in 1931.

In Scotland there is the Princess Margaret Bridge and the much older and much smaller Queen Mary's Bridge at Rothiemay.Also mention of a Queen Margaret Bridge in North Kelvinside. Alansplodge (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Finally, there is a Queens Bridge (Melbourne), probably after Queen Victoria who seems to be the all-time champion bridge patroness. Alansplodge (talk) 15:43, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding Bethany Bridge, the USGS topo map shows a Bethany Cemetery near the eastern end of the bridge, which seems to be this place. I assume that the bridge was named for the Bethany Baptist Church that used to be located there (before the construction of the Allatoona Dam) and that the church was named for Bethany (biblical village). No woman involved, apparently. Coincidentally, I just yesterday edited the article Amelia Earhart Memorial Bridge, and I'm curious—did your search hit on that one? Deor (talk) 16:09, 4 December 2016

In France the is a Pont Jeanne-d'Arc at Rouen and another at Melun, and there's Pont Notre-Dame ("Our Lady") in Paris and another in Melun according to List of crossings of the Seine.

In Warsaw there's a Pont Marii Skłodowskiej-Curie (you'd have thought that there'd be one of those in France, but apparently not).

One more: Edith Cavell Bridge in New Zealand. I promise I'll stop now... Alansplodge (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Another one in France: there is a fr:Pont Anne-de-Bretagne in Nantes, named after Anne of Brittany. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:50, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks all; some excellent suggestions; I'll add all that are not already in the wikidata report this evening. Deor, yes, Amelia was in the report - it depends on the wikidata item being an instance or subclass of a bridge, and having a 'named after' property which resolves to a human female; both conditions were satisfied in the https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4742251 record. Sleuths, we still have quite a list of unresolved bridge names at the top of this query; just sayin'. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Do only bridges named after actual women count? There is a Venus Bridge [10] in Kobe, Japan named after the mythological Goddess. I suspect one could find other bridges related to mythological figures with a bit of effort, but it is unclear to me if you are interested in those. Dragons flight (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Ha! Dragons flight promoting articles on mythological subjects. WP:COI much ;). But beyond that, yes, we already have a couple of bridges named for fictional females, and we should be working towards all bridges having an item in wikidata, and that item specifing who or what the bridge is named after. I welcome any suggestions fictional & mythological. Right now the report only deals with human females, but could be tweaked to include all females. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Bridges named after Queen Victoria needs filling. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:39, 4 December 2016 (UTC).

Please note that bridges named after women come in 2 flavors:

1. A bridge whose name is the woman's maiden name (e.g. Bouvier)
2. A bridge whose name is the woman's married name (e.g. Kennedy)

The latter case is not as interesting as the former when it comes to classifying bridges by the gender of people they were named after because then the bridge is in fact named after a man via his wife. Georgia guy (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Don't understand the point you are trying to make. If a bridge is named Hillary Clinton, it's named after the woman called Hillary Clinton. Even if the bridge is simply called Clinton, if the developers have clearly indicated it's named after Hillary Clinton it still makes sense to say it's named after a woman and not bring her husband in to it. Perhaps the developers (or whoever named it) were also thinking of the husband but in the absence of evidence of that, it's best to just go what by whoever named it said.

Given my age and Chinese Malaysian heritage, I've never really personally agreed with the practice of women taking marital names but it's ultimately their choice and once they've done so it becomes their name. It makes no sense to say that calling the bridge by their name always means you're referring to their husband simple because they took their surname from their husband. To give an obvious example, it's fairly unlikely anyone naming something Angela Merkel or even Merkel is thinking of her first husband.

I mean why even limit to the husband? Why not say something named Helen Clark or Clark is named after her father, actually his father, actually.... And this applies to men to. The only thing you have to decide is whether something name Trump is named after the first person to adopt that spelling probably in the 1600s or you should go back further to Drumpf etc. I mean heck, with a number of European naming customs it isn't uncommon for all components of the name to originate from a relative. And many of these originally (although sometimes directly) arise from saints or sometimes other famous people.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

BTW some women are mostly only well known because of their husband but this doesn't directly relate to their name. For example Rosmah Mansor doesn't share any part of her husband's name. It's possible people may be more likely to name something after a woman mostly only well known because of her husband when she has adopted his surname so it also give connotations of him but that's complicated. In fact your Kennedy example is a good one of this since it shows how it can expand to families since the same could apply to Caroline Kennedy and a number of other male and female Kennedy's who got the name from their father.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It's true that boys are given the Christian name Maria but it's always a second name and they are never referred to as that, as their sisters with José as a middle name are never called that either. The Alexandra Bridge links Ottawa and Gatineau (Ontario/Quebec), Canada. The Queen Alexandra Bridge links Southwick and South Hylton in Sunderland. The Queen Elizabeth Bridge in Windsor is a legacy of the falling out of the neighbouring counties of Berkshire and Buckinghamshire over the state of the old town bridge at Windsor. Things became so heated that Eton, which being on the north side of the river formed part of Buckinghamshire, was transferred into Berkshire. 92.8.62.144 (talk) 10:29, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It's still unclear to us which Elizabeth the Windsor bridge is named after. Do you know, 92.8.62.144? --Tagishsimon (talk) 10:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I found during extensive Googling that it's known locally as the "Elizabeth Bridge" as there is a nearby Victoria Bridge at Datchet constructed during Queen Victoria's reign. Note that Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother was never called "Queen Elizabeth" in the UK during her daughter's reign; if there was any shortening, it was to "Queen Mother" not "Queen Elizabeth" for obvious reasons. I was unable to find out who opened it in 1966, but QEII only lives down the road. Alansplodge (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It may not be possible to pin this down - for example there are a number of Cunard liners and navy warships named "Queen Elizabeth" in the tradition of the original ship which was named for herself by the then Queen Elizabeth in 1938. There is an Elisabeth Bridge (Budapest) linking Buda and Pest in Hungary. 92.8.62.144 (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Names of North America

The other day, I was reading an article about a (probably non-notable) eccentric, who (among his other eccentricities) describes North America as "Atlan, Amexem, Turtle Island, Land of Frogs". We have an article on Turtle Island. Atlan is a dab page, with nothing obvious linking from it, but I think it's safe to assume the name is connected to Atlantis. Amexem redirects to Pangaea, but there's no mention of the word in that article - what is the term's meaning and origin? An explanation in the Pangaea article might be useful, if one can be found. Similarly, is "Land of Frogs" a translation or other rendition of a traditional name for the continent? The other three terms seem fairly legitimate, after all. Tevildo (talk) 10:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

This may be of interest - https://www.bennettjones.com/Publications/Updates/Alberta_Court_Skewers_Gibberish_Legal_Arguments Wymspen (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

This is indeed the gentleman in question - I was wondering about the origin of his names for the continent. I believe they may be associated with Nation of Islam#Cosmology, but that article doesn't go into details either. Tevildo (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

The term Amexem seems to first appear in a 1927 book called Circle Seven Koran where it refers to a transatlantic country centred on Moorish Africa and including Africa, Atlantis and the Americas. reference, scroll to page 23. The book was written by an American, born Timothy Drew in 1886, who called himself Noble Drew Ali. [same reference, page 15]. For more, see Moorish Science Temple of America. 184.147.120.192 (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Arabian 18th-century warrior woman

The article of Ghaliyya al-Wahhabiyya is intriguing but hard to expand as there does not seem to be much written about her outside of Arabian language sources. Does any one have any information about exactly when the event (her defense of Mecca) took place? The article only say it was in the 18th-century. Also: how come she was able to raise and command an army at all? Thank you--Aciram (talk) 15:25, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

By searching for "Ghaliya" instead of "Ghaliyya" (one of those usually annoying Google prompts "Did you mean..."), I found: "A number of incidents ensued (including a Saudi victory under the command of a woman, Ghaliya, at the Battle of Turaba in 1814)..." Ménoret, Pascal. The Saudi Enigma: A History. Zed Books. p. 76. ISBN 978-1842776056. Alansplodge (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Also: "Initially, Muhammad Ali suffered a series of military failures. In late 1813 and early 1814, his troops were defeated near Turaba and Qunfudha. In the Turaba battle, the Wahhabis were commanded by a woman, named Ghaliya, to whom the Egyptians immediately ascribed the power of casting the evil eye". Vassiliev, Alexei (2000). The History of Saudi Arabia. NYU Press. ISBN 978-0814788097. (Chapter 5).

At least we have a date and location now, but little else. Not mentioned at all in Ottoman–Wahhabi War. Alansplodge (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you very much. I have added this to the article, I hope you don't mind. The Arab language article does include more information, but it cannot be added when Google translate is so bad. This was no doubt a remarkable incident in several ways, sad that the information is so hard to come by.--Aciram (talk) 22:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Alansplodge (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You could try posting the relevant text on the language refdesk, and asking for a translation. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Marie La Pen winning election in France

Would France quit the EU if she were to win next year's election?Uncle dan is home (talk) 15:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Her name is Marine Le Pen. See the section "European Union and globalization" in that article regarding her position on Europe. --Xuxl (talk) 19:50, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Also "Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it Marine or Marion? The article contradicts itself in its first line. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't. She was born "Marion Anne Perrine Le Pen", but goes by "Marine Le Pen". Compare Rock Hudson or John Wayne or Willy Brandt. I've updated the article to more clearly reflect this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

It did, but doesn't now. Good fix. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

There is also a Marion in the family though. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

December 5

Gambia and the Commonwealth

Has the new president-elect of the Gambia made any comments on his country's relationship with the Commonwealth? The previous government withdrew in 2013 calling it a neo-colonial institution. Rojomoke (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Not a direct quote, but BBC says "Mr Barrow has promised to undo some of Mr Jammeh's more controversial moves, including reversing decisions to remove The Gambia from the Commonwealth and the International Criminal Court (ICC)." 184.147.120.192 (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Aha, here's the quote they are referring to, made by Adama Barrow to the Anadolu Post on Nov. 27: "“We will ensure that we respect all international agreements we are a signatory to and we will take the country back to the Commonwealth and the International Criminal Court." 184.147.120.192 (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

talking to yourself as sign of madness

Does psychology consider talking to yourself a sign of mental problems? Is too much verbalization of mental self talk a sign that something is wrong with ourselves?31.177.98.136 (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article on the subject is at Intrapersonal communication. It mentions no mental illness that causes it; indeed it seems to imply a near-universal aspect of normal human behavior. --Jayron32 15:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The sign of madness is when you talk to yourself as if you were speaking to another person. 92.8.62.144 (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

--Jayron32 16:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Merely pretending that there is another person isn't likely a problem. However, if you actually believe you are talking to (or listening to) someone other than yourself when no one else is actually present, then that could be a sign of a delusion. Dragons flight (talk) 16:36, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Casino fire?

I remember hearing a while ago on the news that there was a fire at a casino or a diner or something where over one hundred people died. It caught my mind because I remember that the owner wouldn't let anyone out until they paid, and he barricaded the doors, which caused a lot of people to die. Can anyone else find something about this event, because I sure as hell can't. It happened in the United States, so I couldn't get any results because of things in Asia and South America. Thanks in advance. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 15:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Cocoanut Grove fire in 1942? Nearly 500 people died. "The scale of the tragedy shocked the nation and briefly replaced the events of World War II in newspaper headlines. It led to a reform of safety standards and codes across the US, and to major changes in the treatment and rehabilitation of burn victims internationally." Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)These events happen with regrettable regularity. It's usually caused by owners barricading the doors so that people can't get in until they've paid. 92.8.62.144 (talk) 16:14, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

My first thought was the Summerland disaster in 1971 on the Isle of Man, which killed 53: "There was no attempt to evacuate the 3,000 people present until the visible evidence of the flames prompted a panic-stricken mass rush for the exits, where many people were crushed and trampled. Because of the locked fire doors, many people headed to the main entrance, which caused a crush". Alansplodge (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

But then I found The Station nightclub fire in 2003 in Rhode Island: "The fire was caused by pyrotechnics set off by the tour manager of the evening's headlining band Great White, which ignited flammable sound insulation polyurethane foam in the walls and ceilings surrounding the stage. A fast-moving fire with intense black smoke engulfed the club in 5½ minutes. Video footage of the fire shows its ignition, rapid growth, the billowing smoke that quickly made escape impossible, and the exit blockage that further hindered evacuation. The toxic smoke, heat and the stampede of people toward the exits killed 100; 230 were injured and another 132 escaped uninjured". Alansplodge (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the MGM Grand fire, which killed 85 people? Not over 100 and the owner didn't barricade the doors...but it was sort of at a casino at least. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Also the Dupont Plaza Hotel arson in 1986 which killed 98. Alansplodge (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

And yet another, the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, keeps abreast of the theme of "owners locked the doors to cut down on theft, and that's why so many people died". --Jayron32 16:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

And the Happy Land fire killed 87 in 1959 in the Bronx. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2016 (UTC)