Talk:Red Queen (Through the Looking-Glass)

In Science Section
Isn't it contradictory to have an article that cites the end game of chess happening because the Red King (the Red Queen's 'mate') is captured, and then also have a sentence concerning how she embodies the analogue of the RQH featuring an ability to "survive with or without her mate". Quaeler (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not really, because Alice takes the Red Queen before (or rather as) she checkmates the Red King. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Not050 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it reads like you just reconfirmed the statement: the queen is taken before / at the same time as the checkmating of the king and the end of the game. So, again, the queen's existence in this concrete example (as well as in the rules of chess in general) does not continue "with or without her mate". What did i miss in your reply? Quaeler (talk) 14:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I was talking about the course of the game, not just the end of it. The Red King does not move throughout the game in the story, therefore, in that sense, the Queen and all the other pieces do quite well without him.  Also, the Red Queen doesn't die because the Red King is taken so as to bring the game to an end and make her, along with all the pieces, freeze. She "dies" when she is "shaken into a kitten" by Alice when Alice moves to take her and checkmate the King at the same time.  But I suppose what I was trying to articulate was that the RQH can mean (or include the analysis of) competition, or rivalry, between the sexes.  In evolutionary circles you can look at the black widow: she is large and strong and capable of living by herself and eating what she likes, including her mate, but she cannot reproduce without him and besides which, the male has the more potent venom, so what is really meant by "powerful"? In a game of Chess, similar ambiguity is given in terms of "power" in the sense that the queen is acknowledged as the most powerful piece on the board, but the king is seen as the most important, so there is equality but imbalance at the same time: you cannot continue your own game without your king, nor can you defeat your opponant as efficiently without your queen.  That's the sort of thing I was trying to articulate. Not050

Merger proposal
Content of Red Queen page should be merged here, and Red Queen should become the disambiguation page. Cf. Red King, White Queen, etc. Goustien (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Unrelated Content
I find jarring that almost half the content is devoted to a discussion of sexual selection that entirely belongs to another article. That section doesn't just explain the reference to the Red Queen in Ridley study (actually, it doesn't even explain that), but goes on in a long digression about this other topic (especially starting from the paragraph that begins with "Sex is an evolutionary puzzle" - what does that has to do with the Red Queen?), and even going as far as ending with several "See also" that are relevant only to that topic — if one wanted to know more about it, they would go and read the specific article, not an article about the Red Queen. 37.117.60.94 (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Red Queen (Through the Looking-Glass). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081025204502/http://www.hollywoodreporter.com:80/hr/content_display/film/news/e3icc3b73373ecfd4eb5c2cfcccbef7d905 to http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3icc3b73373ecfd4eb5c2cfcccbef7d905

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:43, 23 February 2016 (UTC)