Humanities desk
< October 15	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 16

Cities of Arabian Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean and Bay of Bengal

Is there a website that lists the cities that are situated near the following bodies of water: Red Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Red Sea, Persian Gulf, Indian Ocean and Bay of Bengal? Some of the articles regarding the cities and towns near these bodies of water are confusing.Donmust90 (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Donmust90. The answer to your question depends on the definition of the word "near", which is too vague to be useful. For example, I live about 70 kilometers from the Pacific Ocean. I see that big ocean once or twice a month on average, but nowhere near daily. Some people who own cars might say I live near the ocean but others who travel on foot or on public transportation might conclude that I Iive a very long way away. Does "near" those bodies of water include cities "on" those bodies of water? If not, how far away do they have to be, and who draws the boundaries? It's all too vague. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how big does a settlement have to be to count as a "City"? The definition is also not precise. Any decent map will have major cities on it. You can use something like Google maps and look at the area yourself, and just make your own list with a pen and paper. That will let you set your own criteria. --Jayron 32 06:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, according to most definitions, the Bay of Bengal is part of the Indian Ocean. Our Indian Ocean article has a list of "settlements" in its infobox, though some seem dubious (Kuwait City is on a body of water separated from the main Indian Ocean by straits which are narrow compared to the overall scale of the Indian Ocean, etc)... AnonMoos (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, for example, cities of the Arabian Sea are Karachi, Mumbai, and Surat; cities of the Mediterranean Sea are Marseilles, Beirut, Alexandria; Persian Gulf cities are Dubai, Bandar Abbas, Doha and etc; Indian Ocean cities are Colombo, Kanyakumari of India, Maputo of Mozambique and Bay of Bengal cities are Chennai, Chittagong, Trincomalee and etc. These are the cities but I want to know more. Donmust90 (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 03:25, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Jayron said, you could go on Google Maps and see what settlements fit your own criteria for sure. We also have Lists of ports. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've not visited any of these places but they appear to be actual ports. As Cullen points out, the key word here is "near". From Bugs' link you will see, for example, that Fremantle is the port but Perth is the city (a few miles up the Swan River, although it's all one big conurbation).2A00:23C4:7C86:9000:E9DB:6543:7C9E:A34F (talk) 08:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why the definitions here are so confounding. Local political geography is very different from place to place. For example, where I grew up, in New England, the local political geography with its organization into fully incorporated New England towns, is VERY different than one finds almost anywhere else in the U.S. (it's more like the Communes of France than anything else in American political geography) and there are lots of different ways that things like "city" are defined. Do we use each local region's political definition of "city"? Do we use some more abstract but universal definition of the concept? I mean, under one definition Fremantle is a different city than Perth, but under the other it may be considered to be part of the same city. These things are important to define before we make such as list as the OP wants, and without such definitions decided ahead of time, proceeding with such a meaningful list is impossible. --Jayron 32 09:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Francophone countries with "permis de conduire" on driving licenses

Other than former Soviet republics, are there any non-Francophone countries that have "permis de conduire" written on their driving licenses? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 11:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, also Laos and Lebanon, per the images that come up on a google search for "[name of country] drivers license". List_of_French_possessions_and_colonies might suggest some other countries to check. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Romania is now part of Francophonie but not in the 1970s.

--Error (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Driving licence in North Macedonia, Driving licence in Poland --Amble (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also on Dutch driving licences. --Lambiam 23:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bear in mind (though you probably know) that French was the international language of diplomacy for centuries, up to the last one, so documentation with international applications from many countries included French translations of at least part of the text, and traces of this have lingered. For example, my current British passport (issued 2016) includes French translations of a few words and sentences; the oldest expired one I have, dating from 1989, has a good deal more; and as far as I recall the one I had previous to that contained even more. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.178.0 (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another French language traffic-related term is Convoi exceptionnel, which 'has been widely accepted and adopted by most countries as the recognised umbrella term for anything “Wide, Long, High or Heavy” that moves by road across the European mainland'. [1] Alansplodge (talk) 14:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TIR (Transport International Routiere, I think) has become tir, the Romanian word for trailer truck. Same with Turkish tır. --Error (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment to "Subsequent married name" on the language desk. 212.159.12.93 (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The worst case hypothesis for the above illustrated 1970s license would be one Romanian driver once asked whether trying to use a very badly counterfeited french license. --Askedonty (talk) 13:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]

United States Ram Fleet

The above article begins The United States Ram Fleet was a Union Army unit of steam powered ram ships during the American Civil War. The unit was independent of the Union Army and Navy and reported directly to the Secretary of War, Edwin M. Stanton. Is this a contradiction or am I missing something? --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 20:28, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a contradiction, and the same contradiction is in the linked article on the later Mississippi Marine Brigade.

One of the linked references, Under Two Flags by William M. Fowler, says:

More bothersome than the matter of the boats was the issue of rank and command. Ellet was under command of the secretary of war, and as such he was outside naval authority. Technically, of course, all gunboats, although manned by the navy, were under army command. But that arrangement was proving troublesome. Naval officers disliked being part of the army chain of command and wanted more independence. Many in the Navy Department were pressing for greater control over riverine operations. Stanton insisted that Ellet hold rank and conferred upon him a full colonelcy.

Stanton was the secretary of war. So if this passage is accurate, it sounds as though they were technically navy ships, but under army command like ordinary gunboats of the time, but not under the normal army chain of command either. Clearly they were trying to perplex Wikipedia contributors. --174.89.48.182 (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The contradiction is not in the Wikipedia description of the situation, which is accurate and simple and easy to understand. The contradiction is in the confusing command structure around the ram ships fleet, which as you rightly note, was confusing by its very nature. The Wikipedia text is an accurate reflection of that and could not be written much better than it is. --Jayron 32 09:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So this was a Union Army unit independent of the Union Army? I must confess this is less easy for me to get my head around than it is for you. --Lambiam 10:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point. I say "contradiction; reword". --174.89.48.182 (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't give that much credit to the whole of such an interpretation of William Fowler's. The colonelcy was basically acquired. The DayBook, Civil War Navy Special Edition-Technology (https://www.history.navy.mil/museums/hrnm/resources-daybook-special.html) has it, after Ellet was made a colonel, : "While Ellet and the U.S. Navy’s local commander, Flag-officer William C. Davis, argued over future strategy, the Confederates took the initiative." --Askedonty (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC) ( note their pdf will not link, but it's somewhere on google by the title. ) -- Askedonty (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't want a ram ships unit existing before that it was created. I've read a Phillip K. Dick novel once mentioning Stanton. I guess the Mississippi was the craddle. --Askedonty (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The development of ram ships is already discussed in the article; they were initially used by the Confederacy in the first months of the war. More information at Naval ram#Steam rams. Alansplodge (talk) 13:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]