Wikipedia

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

< Wikipedia:Reference desk‎ | Archives‎ | Humanities
Humanities desk
< September 6 << Aug | September | Oct >> September 8 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


September 7

edit

If the U.S. government was fighting terrorists hiding in vast rain forests during the 1940's, would she prefer artillery bombardment over carpet bombing to eliminate the threat?

edit

Let's suppose that: (1) There's a good firing position or airbase near a small rural community about five kilometers away from the target. (2) There are about 200 hundred insurgents. (3) A reconnaissance aircraft has already pinpointed their location.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.144.213.62 (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking rather a lot of hypotheticals here, but it might help to look at the tactics of the US (and other Allies, such as ANZAC) in the Pacific Theater of World War II, when many jungle-covered Pacific islands were held by Japanese forces with a good understanding of the lay of the land. These did include both artillery bombardment (mostly from ships offshore) and aerial bombing, but the problem with both strategies is that a decent bunker can provide good defense against anything other than directly-targeted attacks, and it's easy to hide bunkers in thick forests. Ultimately, the Allies had to basically land on and capture every island between Australia and Japan physically and fight soldier-to-soldier, which is a nasty, bloody business. More-or-less the same strategies were still in use during the Korean War and the Vietnam War, with the same horrible consequences for the soldiers sent to fight. Smurrayinchester 08:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not every island. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Artwork comprising a real hat, a photo of a hat, and the vocabulary definition of a hat

edit

Can anyone identify the author or the name of this work, please? If I recall correctly, its meaning is in wondering what s exactly the meaning of "hat". Thanks --151.75.50.175 (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you by any chance getting mixed up mashing together various paintings of René_Magritte? E.g. The_Treachery_of_Images - "In these "Ceci n'est pas" works, Magritte points out that no matter how naturalistically we depict an object, we never do catch the item itself." But that's a thing that's not pipe, not a thing that's not a hat. Magritte had lots of hats in his paintings - e.g. in The_Son_of_Man and many others. In his "The Interpretation of Dreams" [1], many objects are painted, some have matching names, some do not. Anyway, your question makes me think of Magritte, even though I don't think there's a specific work of his like you describe. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A hommage to Magritte's picture appears on the cover of various editions of The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat - see this page from MOMA for some examples. Tevildo (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Consider looking at these articles as well as their "See also" sections: One and Three Chairs, The Treachery of Images, An Oak Tree, and this Category: Category:Conceptual art. Bus stop (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I immediately thought of Joseph Kosuth's influential 1965 One and Three series, too (for another example, see his One and Three Shovels, with physical "shovel, photograph of the shovel, photographic enlargement of dictionary definition of 'shovel'", at 2008 retrospective of his 1960's conceptual art work, now posted online at Sean Kelly Gallery, with links and a valuable exhibition essay by noted contemporary art historian Robert Hobbs -- Paulscrawl (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Detail of Joseph Kosuth's One and Three Hats (1965) at CAPC musée d'art contemporain de Bordeaux (Museum of Contemporary Art, Bordeaux); full work, smaller image (but scroll over for magnification) at ArtValue.com record of Sotheby's auction -- Paulscrawl (talk) 04:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Date of congressional act

edit

As some may know, before the 20th amendment, Congess ended on March 3/4 in odd years, going up to noon on the 4th while saying it is the legislative day of the 3rd. If an act says it's the Act of March 3, 1865, does that mean that Lincoln must have signed it before noon and the consequent festivities, or could it have been signed later? Specifically, it's H.R. 807. I know for certain that it wasn't finalized til the morning of the 4th, I'm trying to prove for certain that Lincoln signed it before the inauguration.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The date given is the date it became a law, which normally is the day it was signed by the President. However, it could have become law without his signature. John M Baker (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would have been a pocket veto as Congress had adjourned (the new Senate had a brief special session).--Wehwalt (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Senate Journal for March 3, 1865, this bill was one of a number that Lincoln signed before the Congress terminated. John M Baker (talk) 03:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, that resolves it.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:36, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is the source for, and why is the candidate (seemingly) crying here?

edit

I won't name the US presidential candidate, since I do not want to be seen as holding a POV or violating BLP. But can anyone give the original source for this picture and the context for it? Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any crying. It looks more like "EEEEW!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:47, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was a famous crying incident in New Hampshire in 2008 but the emotion then was real but far more restrained. Could this have been taken at a funeral of someone she loved? Or is it possibly a photo of a "look alike"? A standard Google Image search doesn't produce this image. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
She's not crying. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image seems recently to have been published. To describe it as one of disgust, not crying, seems like special pleading. But what I am asking is for its origin its provenance, not people's opinion of it. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To describe it as crying, when there are no observable tears, seems like a stretch. So how did it turn up at that website, and how did you find it? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think the most famous "crying" incident was Edmund Muskie in 1972.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:38, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Photo appears to be someone who looks a lot like Hilary Clinton - saying so is not BLP violation. Google reverse image search [2] currently shows this image posted very few (23)places online, mostly at conservative sites (many hits at drudgereport) with captions about news that could be seen as bad for Clinton. No provenance easily established. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just like goofy-looking pictures of Dubya were rampant during 2001-2009. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arrr! InedibleHulk (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look in google images for "Hillary Clinton grimacing", and all manner of pictures turn up, some goofier than this, and for other public figures as well. The photo in question is posted at Reuters,[3] ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, that image gets more responses from reverse google image search than the OP link does, 5 pages instead of 3: [4]. But they are still mainly spurious duplicates of posts on drudgereport and freerepublic dot com. I can't find any associated Reuters article at present. Your link has 'reuters' in the URL, but it is hosted at some media aggregating site called zenfs.com... this situation seems a little fishy to me, but I also don't know any other ways to look in to the issue of source/provenance. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we still have no provenance, no source who takes credit for the photo, no date or local where or when it was taken? That's all I am concerned with. μηδείς (talk) 01:39, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yimg.com is just the image (and/or other content) part of Yahoo (which is Zenfs). Not to be confused with ytimg.com for YouTube. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell about the photographer, I'm guessing it was taken in Iowa, probably at one of the numerous political events. I also wouldn't be completely surprised if Reuters never actually used the photo, they just licenced it at some stage and people then got it from them. Nil Einne (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The expression in that picture is one that many of us would have at the mere thought of having to be in Iowa. But I suppose the real question is whether the picture is "free", i.e. could it be posted on a user page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The image from zenfs.com contains an embedded description: Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton reacts as she listens to a question from the audience during a campaign event at Uncle Nancy's Coffee in Newton, Iowa, September 6, 2015. REUTERS/Scott Morgan. The exact time stamp is 2015-09-06 21:57:08 UTC (which is also present in the file name in ISO 8601 format). -- BenRG (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As for "why is she seemingly crying", I doubt she was, even seemingly. Everyone makes weird faces for fractions of a second, and if you're a presidential candidate someone will snap a photo at the right/wrong moment. To me it looks more like she's about to sneeze. -- BenRG (talk) 17:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Snapping a photo is one thing, but what's even more scandalous are screenshots. In any televised speech, there are hundreds or thousands of frames with closed eyes and open mouths. Extracted and stitched together in an animated GIF, these can appear to be soulful singing, extended orgasms, sneeze fighting or whatever, depending on the headline. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The most identifiable entity in that photo is not the person but the fabric of the clothing (and also the necklace). Under most circumstances more than one photo would be available of this person wearing that fabric and wearing that necklace, especially if there were other photographers around and if multiple photos were taken. The availability of one such photo showing those entities would confirm or obviate this being the Hillary Clinton person, and it might shed light on where and when our photo was taken. Bus stop (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With BenRG's info, it's easy to find all this. [5] in particular [6] [7] shows what appears to be the same clothing, the same necklace and the same woman in red (second photo not first). I agree with BenRG on the later point and was thinking the same thing, particularly in the modern world of digital cameras, if you're a political with so many people following you can be pretty much sure you'll have people capturing you with all sort of expressions. (Perhaps even worse if you eat a bacon sandwich and certain media are out to get you, as is likely to be the case if you're a significant politician.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Answer, BenRG. I haven't been able to get any video of the event, only stills. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2015_September_7&oldid=936104207"