Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



The Wikipedia Reference Desk covering the topic of humanities.

Welcome to the humanities reference desk.
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

  • Provide a short header that gives the general topic of the question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Post your question to only one desk.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. We'll answer here within a few days.
  • 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.



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:
Help desk
Village pump
Help manual


November 28[edit]

Cixi and Guangwu[edit]

When Empress Dowager Cixi and the Guangxu Emperor fled to Xian after the Boxer Rebellion where did they live in during their exile in Xian? They left Beijing on 14 August 1900 and did not return to the capital until January 1902. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's a lot more obscure than it ought to be. It's not even mentioned in our History of Xi'an article. I was going nowhere until I remembered that in my far-off school days, Cixi was called Tz'u-Hsi [1] and that led me to Sian, the former transliteration of Xi'an. Anyhow, by a lot of Googling book titles, I eventually came to Through hidden Shensi (1902) by Francis Henry Nichols, an American charity worker, who arrived in Sian three weeks after Tz'u-Hsi (or Tsz' Hi as he calls her) had returned to Beijing. From page 203 to page 208, Nichols describes the Imperial progress through the countryside, staying at the residences of local governors or in official inns ("kung kwan") and accompanied by "wholesale decapitation" of those who displeased her. On page 209, he describes the former viceroy's residence "in a park in the northern part of Sian" which was renovated for the use of the Dowager Empress. "The whole area, comprising about fifdteen acres, was then inclosed with a high brick-wall, in evident imitation of the forbidden city in Pekin". A photograph of the elaborate gateway faces page 210. He managed to persuade an official to give him a tour of the complex, which he describes in the following pages. Identifying whether these buildings are still standing today has eluded me. Alansplodge (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Mini pianos with 12 keys?[edit]

Are there mini-pianos for training scales? That is, twice 12 keys? Llaanngg (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Here are some with 25 keys. --Jayron32 09:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Those are toys though, this kind of thing is better. --Viennese Waltz 10:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
That is not much more than a toy either, with its "mini keys". For "training scales" - which I assume means "learning to play scales on a piano" - you need full-size keys, preferably weighted (i.e not on springs), and at least four octaves (49 keys - which will of course only allow a scale of three octaves in most keys). For learning the fingerings one of these might be a better option. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
(ec) Yours is also a toy,User:Viennese Waltz , and as above, it's also designed for little fingers. And these keys are not weighted. --Llaanngg (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The ones in Jayron's link are clearly designed to appeal to children, with their bright colours and superhero graphics. That's what I meant when I said they were toys. The one in my link may not be much good for learning to play scales either, but it's not explicitly designed to look like a child's plaything. --Viennese Waltz 17:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't aware the super-hero pictures altered the way it produced sound. --Jayron32 17:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't be silly! You'll be claiming that go-faster stripes don't make a car go faster next. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.248.159.54 (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
It's defined as a toy by what it looks like, not by the way it produces sound. --Viennese Waltz 07:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 US House election data[edit]

Hello,

I am wondering if Wikipedia has the 2016 US House election results in a data set that I would be able to use for my own research, if not, can you direct me to where your information came from? I have checked many other sites, and Wiki currently has the most complete and succinct list.

I appreciate your time167.206.48.221 (talk) 04:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)Crystal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.206.48.221 (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You could do a copy-and-paste into whatever document you're working on. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • If you're looking for a good way to extract the data, just copying the HTML tables into Excel usually does the trick, although you might have to fix a bit of formatting afterwards. Smurrayinchester 09:25, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
You really need the official numbers from the US Government: usa.gov says they will be available at usa.gov in mid-2017; but if you need them sooner, you can go one by one to each state's election office, where they will be posted no later than Dec 19. 184.147.120.192 (talk) 18:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
You might be able to use Pandoc to convert the wikitext of those tables into a more palatable file format, with less pain than trying to scrape HTML. Wikidata might be a good place to share the output. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Betrayal of Anne Frank[edit]

Who betrayed Anne Frank, her family and the other 4 people in hiding and why? 81.154.209.39 (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article you just linked, her betrayer has never been identified. The same article also notes several suspected informants, but no one has been firmly identified as the one. --Jayron32 18:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

What do you think why the unknown person informed the Nazis where they were hiding? He/she betrayed them because...? 81.154.209.39 (talk) 16:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Since we don't know who betrayed Anne Frank, we don't know their motive for sure either. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:29, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
CautionThe person who asked this question is a multiple block evader. Please do not feed this troll. David J Johnson (talk) 22:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

November 29[edit]

Defending abortion without defending infanticide[edit]

According to here, Abortion debate#Fetal personhood in the second paragraph it says that one person concedes that infants do not qualify as persons according to the criteria for personhood mentioned in the first paragraph. The second paragraph says that defenders of the criteria respond that reversibly comatose patients do fit the criteria, but not infants. How could one defend the criteria in such a way without defending infanticide? I'm not asking for arguments in favour of abortion which don't use the criteria.Uncle dan is home (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Given a certain definition of personhood, the difference between a patient in a reversible coma and a fetus is that the former is a once-and-possibly-future person, while the latter is merely a possibly-future person. Critics of potential-personhood-centered pro-life arguments often take the concern over potential-future-persons to the extreme and insist that one should conclude that even sperm and eggs would be protected under such criteria. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
And another definition is life starts at conception and potential human doesn't mean anything. Otherwise people should multiply as fast as possible till whatever the Earth can take (36 billion?) then instantly switch to replacement-level fertility cause otherwise they're preventing future lives. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

What about the difference between an infant and fetus?Uncle dan is home (talk) 19:38, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not a sharp partition, but a fuzzy transition. But just because it is a genuinely hard problem to determine where exactly the transition takes place does not mean that we cannot identify clear examples of one case of the other. A very early foetus does not meet any definition of personhood. A healthy young child certainly meets most. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The issue with the abortion debate is an issue of what social scientists call Framing. How you view the issue depends on how you "frame" the issues in context. "Should we kill innocent babies or not" is a different "frame" than "Does restricting access to abortion result in better health outcomes for society as a whole". The defense of legal abortion is not in redefining personhood to make aborting a fetus more acceptable, the defense of legal abortion centers around a more nuanced view which is that health outcomes are better in a society with access to abortion, and that reducing abortions (which is still a goal of the pro-choice crowd) is accomplished not by restricting access to abortion, but through education, access to birth control, raising the socioeconomic status of women, etc. --Jayron32 20:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
See also the "infanticide argument" part of Philosophical aspects of the abortion debate. Possibly of interest is the Beginning of human personhood. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Indigenous Protestant clergymen of Polynesia[edit]

Who was/were the first indigenous Protestant clergymen (i.e. Pastors or Reverends) of Polynesia? --KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I haven't read it, but this book looks promising. --Jayron32 16:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
This page notes that Pomare II was the first Polynesian to be baptised, which was done in 1819. That would give you a date to start looking for the first native clergymen; it would have been a considerable time after that. --Jayron32 16:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Well I know the answer for the Hawaiian side: James Kekela in 1849. But that still doesn't mean other pastors/ministers could have been ordained before then in other parts of Polynesia. I know the early missionaries had people they called native helpers or lay preacher but I'm not speaking about those.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Moorish Revival landscaping[edit]

I am researching landscaping solutions that would complement a city's Moorish Revival architecture. This is somewhat complicated by the city's humid continental climate. Almost all examples of Moorish Revival architecture I find are from areas of either Mediterranean or subtropical climate, which means the plants are not cold-hardy. Can someone tell me where to look? Any significant examples of Moorish Revival landscaping in continental climate? Surtsicna (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Humid continental climate
You can use the two articles you linked to find a list of buildings that qualify as that type of architecture and are located in a city that matches the coloured-in areas on this map. Examples would include Dohány Street Synagogue in Budapest, Neue Synagogue in Berlin, Vorontsov Palace in Crimea, National and University Library of Bosnia and Herzegovina in Sarajevo, etc. If this answer failed to understand the question, please post a clarification. 184.147.120.192 (talk) 12:05, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Mangareva and the Gambier Islands Annexation[edit]

I'm trying to find the exact date for the annexation of Mangareva and the Gambier Islands but it seems there are two different ones reported: 21 February 1881 when the island chiefs and Henri Isidore Chessé signed an agreement and then another date "23 February 1881" which seems to be a revision of the existing native law code. My confusion with this is why did annexation dated to the latter date instead, These are the two sources I've been using [2] and [3]. However there are more ones out there. Please someone with the knowledge of French or the patience to copy and paste French text to Google Translate, help me understand the reason for this dual dating. Some sources with the 23 February [4]. Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 05:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The sources say the same thing but disagree on the date: that the inhabitants of Gambier Islands were convened in solemn assembly and voted in favor of annexation. The problem is, as you state, that some say the assembly was convened on February 21 and others on February 23rd. There is no indication that the meeting lasted more than a day either, so that's not the source of the discrepancy. Both sources are relatively close to the events themselves, but still a few years removed, so it's hard to say which one of them is correct. --Xuxl (talk) 14:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This source [5] confirms les habitants demanderent le 21 fevrier 1881 l'annexation a la France, and their wish was granted two days later. 81.134.89.140 (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

It says the treaty was ratified by the President of France the following year in January 1882 not February 23, 1887.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Here are some details which can be interesting.« An agreement [actually, a request for annexation] is concluded between the King [Bernardo, probably], the leaders of islands Mangareva (Gambier) and representative of the Government in Oceania [M. Chessé], on February 21st 1881 » [Les intérêts français dans l’océan Pacifique ; Paul Deschanel (deputy, at this time) ; 1888 ; p. 70-71].... « The annexation was pronounced on February 23rd 1881. » [Les colonies françaises, un siècle d’expansion coloniale ; M. Dubois & A. Terrier ; 1901 ; p. 1028] --Mistig (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

How do we know about usage of ancient buildings?[edit]

For example, How do we know that Colosseum was used for gladiator? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 11:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Archaeology and studying written contemporary sources.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 11:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
See, for instance, Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre, which mentions the works of Suetonius and Cassius Dio and Martial. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
How archeology can tell us By the 2nd century BC the area was densely inhabited? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 11:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
You may be interested to read Post-excavation analysis, and this article from Slate. 184.147.120.192 (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
One thing that we don't know is exactly how the Colosseum's awning or velarium worked, which sheltered the audience from the sun. There are a few tantalising hints by classical writers and the physical remains on the top tier, but nobody really knows for sure how the vast opening at the top of the amphitheatre could be shaded. [6] [7] Alansplodge (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Presidential Election[edit]

How did Hillary Clinton manage to lose all three battle ground states and 3 of the blue wall states. I can understand splitting but going 1 for seven?68.191.203.98 (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The polls got it wrong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Not even very wrong. National polls were wrong by about 2%, which as it happened was enough to flip many battlegrounds and a few of the less secure traditionally Democratic states. [8] It's not magic, a more popular candidate will win more states. This year the polling was off which gave many Clinton supporters a false sense of confidence, but historically pollsters often make systematic errors of a few percentage points by misjudging who is going to turn out to vote. Dragons flight (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, this year the more popular candidate won less states. Clinton was more popular by 1.7%, well north of 2,000,000 more votes. She only won 20 states + DC, or 21/51. Trump, with less votes, won 31/51 states and 306/538 electoral votes. The reason for that is that a vote in California (the most populous state) is only worth 1/4th of a vote in Wyoming (the least populous state). You can dominate the electoral college by appealing to the low-population rural states, which is what Trump did, because the voters in those states "count" more towards the presidential election than do the voters in high-population, more urban states. See here for a breakdown of what a person in each state is "worth" to the electoral college process, and here for a more broad-based social analysis of how Trump won. That analysis seems to show that the difference was in Rust Belt voters who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012, and switched to Trump in 2016, which pushed former Great Lakes Region states, traditionally Democratic strongholds, into the Red camp. --Jayron32 18:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, Clinton won the popular vote. In my head, I was actually thinking something along the lines of being more popular compared to expectations and thus winning more states than expected, but obviously I did not express that. Dragons flight (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, she "won" the popular vote in the sense that she got more than Trump. She was well short of a majority.
In particular, her popular-vote margin over Trump was less than half of substantially less than the votes that went to Gary Johnson. It's not clear how those voters would have voted in a two-person race. Johnson was a Republican as governor of New Mexico, and in ordinary circumstances I would expect him to pull in more votes from Republicans than from Democrats, but on the other hand a lot of the votes Johnson got from Republicans might have been from Republicans who would never have voted for Trump ever ever ever. So it's a little hard to say. --Trovatore (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
How many times did she go to these states to campain, compare to Donald Trump, after the conventions? Dja1979 (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
At least in the final weeks (not sure about right after the convention) she did relatively little campaigning in those states, with some outlets (maybe unreliably) reporting that there was major conflict within the Clinton organization because of that. Bill Clinton purportedly got into a big argument with Hillary's campaign management, saying they were making bad calls by staying out of those places. (Although Hillary herself didn't campaign much there, Bill made multiple appearances on her behalf). The usual narrative about the rust belt is that people there blamed its economic decline since the 1990s on NAFTA, a trade agreement signed by Bill when he was president, that was seen as exporting jobs to Mexico. Trump campaigned hard on a protectionist platform opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and that gained him considerable support in the midwestern industrial (rust belt) states. 50.0.136.56 (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Belgium - Netherlands land swap[edit]

This article indicates that the final impetus for the land swap between the two countries is linked to an investigation, and the explanation includes how very difficult it was for the Belgian officials to cross the river by boat. I live in New Jersey, and if the Maas River is anything like the East River or the Hudson River, I don't understand what the big deal is. What is this major obstacle or crossing a river all about? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 17:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The article links [9] which says "no proper landing zone for boats or equipment coming in by water" and "You had to jump from the boat onto the shore. You needed to be in shape for this." They are not building shore facilities for a few acres. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Such transfers are actually not uncommon in order to make things easier for law enforcement, and especially when rivers change course. For example, check out this book which mentions a 1950 land swap between the US states of Kansas and Missouri for exactly this reason. Blythwood (talk) 21:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Territorial evolution of the United States mentions several such changes. There's also the dozens of transfers between the U.S. and Mexico required when the Rio Grande gets straightened or floods. On the other hand, sometimes no one wants to change - for example, Carter Lake, Iowa, is on the west side of the Missouri and seems to have no desire to join Nebraska. --Golbez (talk) 22:01, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
There are MANY such locations in the U.S. where land swaps never occurred, not just Carter Lake, but also places like Kaskaskia, Illinois and Corona, Tennessee and the Kentucky Bend and Marble Hill, Manhattan, and many others. --Jayron32 04:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The Kentucky Bend is different; that simply stems from the definition of Kentucky being "the area above a certain line, on this side of the Mississippi". They didn't realize the Mississippi curled back across that line a couple of times. Similar to Point Roberts, Washington, though in that case they did appear to know the coastline crossed the border more than once and simply let it be. --Golbez (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the 49° survey would seem to have started at Point Roberts, given that the border monuments are numbered from there. —Tamfang (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Talking about odd borders and law enforcement problems, incidentally, reminds me of the slightly off-topic Yellowstone Murder Zone. Blythwood (talk) 08:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

November 30[edit]

Successful assassination of Castro - what would it have accomplished?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

good place to find election and polling results?[edit]

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 [10] 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 [11]. ANES data center [12] may also be of interest. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

What is the name of the fallacy that works like this?[edit]

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)

Round world in art[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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)

December 2[edit]

Another abortion question[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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!"[edit]

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[edit]

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)

ID cards[edit]

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[edit]

Ruins of the Gambier Islands[edit]

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[edit]

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)