Humanities desk
< May 12	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 14 >

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.

May 13

Most powerful country in WW2

Which was the most powerful country, in terms of military power? Germany, USSR, US, Britain or Japan? --Yoglti (talk) 01:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of trimmers, or shavers -- 01:58, 13 May 2013‎ User:Medeis

As far as the ability to crank out the largest numbers of technologically-advanced fighter planes, tanks, aircraft carriers, etc., it was unquestionably the United States (once the production lines got fully going). If you want to know who had an immediate advantage in any theatre of combat at any point, examine the detailed articles about the war... AnonMoos (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although in terms of sheer numbers (combined with reasonable technology) the Soviet Union far exceeded the other Allies, and bore the brunt of the fighting against Germany. They were rather weak at sea however, where the US Navy overtook the Royal Navy sometime in 1944. At the start of World War II, France was usually acknowledged to have the world's most powerful army, which is why the Battle of France took everyone by surprise, even the Germans. Alansplodge (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the United States had a comparable population during WWII (see World War II casualties), whereas the British Empire had a larger population than any other country. Of course, the Soviet Union was willing to conscript millions of men, women, and children and send them to their deaths for small gains. None of the other countries, including Germany, was quite as callous about sacrificing human lives. --Bowlhover (talk) 08:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The only flaw in that statement is that the British Empire is not a single country. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of China. Empire of Japan. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a direct answer to your question but after the war Churchill wrote in The Grand Alliance about the situation after the attack on Pearl Harbour in 1941. He said "but now at this very moment I knew the United States was in the war up to the neck and in to the death. So we had won after all. . . . We should not be wiped out. Our history would not come to an end. We might not even have to die as individuals", and then "Being saturated and satiated with emotion and sensation, I went to bed and slept the sleep of the saved and thankful".[1] Thincat (talk) 14:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to stipulate when. For the first several years of WW2, the answer would unquestionably be Germany because their military was large, industrially-based, efficient, modernised, well led and had the advantage of a tactical innovation. And the proof of the pudding is that they were very successful. The Allied and Russian war machines took quite some time to play catch-up, even once the USA formally entered the war. However, in (say) 1945, to answer "Germany" would be patently ludicrous. --Dweller (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Situation Room Photo

Was the famous "Situation Room Photo" of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and others during the Bin Laden assassination staged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.4.45.86 (talk) 05:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the article "Situation Room"? Gabbe (talk) 07:23, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article which does not actually answer the OP's question. --Viennese Waltz 08:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it were staged, one would expect a well-rounded article to mention that. But, of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of... uh, something. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Google informs me that Alex Jones says it was staged. Taking that into account, I'm going to assume that it's 100% legit. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 08:11, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define staged? There a wide range from "the photographer just walked in the room, saw them, and took the shot" to "they all sat in a studio pretending to look at a screen adopting poses of anxious fascination". Clearly it was a pre-planned photo-opportunity, but that does not make it fake. Paul B (talk) 09:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remember hearing some reliable reports that there had been an issue with the video feed around the time the photo was taken, so while they are looking intensely at a screen, they may be waiting for the signal to be regained, rather than watching an intense firefight. I'm unable to find anything substantive on that, however, in the sea of reptoid-Jewish conspiracy theories. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, we don't need to be speculating. Our article has a quote from the photographer saying that the shot wasn't pre-planned: "During the mission itself, I made approximately 100 photographs, almost all from this cramped spot in the corner." The article also makes clear that nobody could see the firefight, and that "President Obama later said he believed the picture was taken about the time the room's occupants were informed or realized that one of the raid's helicopters had crashed." --Bowlhover (talk) 09:39, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not evidence that it wasn't "pre-planned". Do you think the photographer hid there hoping to get a shot, like a paparazzo lurking behind a sand-dune waiting for a starlet to take her top off on the beach? The photographer was part of the planned scenario to record events in the room, later to be released to the press. Paul B (talk) 13:58, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean that the shot was staged, though. Having a photographer present to record the event (after all, if they didn't want any pictures taken, he wouldn't have been there) doesn't mean that the positioning of the people, their facial expressions, or any other aspect of the photo was "staged", which would mean "arranged just for the photograph itself" as opposed to "would have happened pretty much exactly like this even if the photographer hadn't taken this photo". We have zero evidence that anything was done differently for the photograph in question, nor do we have any evidence that this was posturing, pretense, or posing. --Jayron32 16:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. "Staged" can mean many many different things. Obviously the official white house photographer can't just wander in and out of any meetings at will. There will be a specific management of the process of recording events, which I imagine is quite detailed. Many of the photographs produced by Souza are clearly intended to have an informal snap-shoty look. See for example this photo of Obama's arrival at the Oval office. He has to have been stationed there waiting, while Obama was outside and enters at a designated moment. In that sense it is both "staged" and "authentic". Paul B (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me it was somewhat less "staged" than your typical happy family snap of everybody saying "cheese" and smiling unnaturally and standing together in a pose that NEVER occurs by chance. Nobody ever criticises that institution as involving any "staging", because it became a tradition a long time ago - but staged it most definitely is. The Situation Room photo - does anyone imagine the photographer said "Now, all put on your most serious faces"? Under the circumstances they were there for, they didn't need any prompting for that. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a different issue. All those photos of people lined up smiling at the camera - whether in schools, family events, or summit meetings - conform to a recognised convention. We know people are arranging themselves for the camera. We don't call those "staged" because there is no pretence involved. The question is about photos that appear to be "innocent" records of a moment, but are not. There are many such examples. This kissing couple were asked to do a public snog by the photographer. These two were not; in fact I believe the girl was none-too happy to be grabbed in the street by a random stranger. The photo under discussion was evidently to some degree planned, but of course there is no evidence that people were posed. Paul B (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Osama bin Laden dead: Blackout during raid on bin Laden compound:

Leon Panetta, director of the CIA, revealed there was a 25 minute blackout during which the live feed from cameras mounted on the helmets of the US special forces was cut off. A photograph released by the White House appeared to show the President and his aides in the situation room watching the action as it unfolded. In fact they had little knowledge of what was happening in the compound. Mr Panetta said: “Once those teams went into the compound I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes where we really didn’t know just exactly what was going on. And there were some very tense moments as we were waiting for information. We had some observation of the approach there, but we did not have direct flow of information as to the actual conduct of the operation itself as they were going through the compound.”

So, not staged, but not quite what initial reports made it out to be either. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? We have here what is made to look like a candid photograph, while the sources say it isn't. Yet we are supposed to pretend that family lineups are the "real" staged photographs, when no one thinks they are candid? How stupid are we supposed to be? μηδείς (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Family lineups would be called "posed" rather than "staged". As regards the famous photo, it looks like Hillary is gasping in astonishment or something. When asked about that, she said she was merely covering her mouth, as she was coughing. I wonder why someone would "stage" a cough as opposed to trying to look dramatic? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Every source posted by me and others suggests that it's a candid photograph. It is not reasonable to assume that everyone was trying to maintain a serious look for all of the photographer's 100 shots. --Bowlhover (talk) 06:38, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pity we cannot access the EXIF data for the photo. Hayttom 17:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hayttom (talk • contribs) [reply]

Except that this is a reference desk, not a forensic image lab where they conduct original research. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The picture has plenty of metadata listed, and it's important to note that the picture was reportedly altered to blur an image of a confidential document. So presumably only the White House has access to the original anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The blur is not concealed. You can see the distortion effect clearly (the document is on the table in front of Hillary Clinton). It has also been claimed that the monitor screens on the walls have been "whited out" (they can be clearly seen in other photos of the room) but it looks to me as though protective blinds have been dropped in front of them. Paul B (talk) 11:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gubernatorial term limits California

G'day. California has - as other US states as well - a term limit for the Governor. No person shall serve more than two terms. Now, what about gubernatorial succession? May someone who succeeds to the governorship (from the office of Lt. Gov.) be elected twice to office? Could Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom run for governor in 2014 and 2018 should he become governor now? The states constitution does not answer this question. For example the Vice President may run twice for the presidency, if there remain less than two years of the remaining term. Maybe there is the same rule in California and other states. Or is this question unsettled and had to be ruled by courts should this case ever happen. Cheers --91.103.112.54 (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Schwartzeneggar only served two years of his first term and a full four year term. He could have run for re-election, but he chose not. So it may depend on how much of a term the partial term consists of. RNealK (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I believe the typical application of term limits allows an unelected office-holder to be elected twice (after taking office) so long as he or she did not serve more than half of a term prior to first being elected to the office. I know this is explicitly spelled out in the US Constitution for presidents. For example, since Gerald Ford became president just a little over a year into Richard Nixon's second term, he was allowed to run for re-election in 1976, but could not have done so in 1980. Conversely Lyndon B. Johnson, who took office near the end of the term to which JFK had been elected, theoretically could have served until January 1973, had he run for re-election and won in 1968. An ironic aside — Johnson actually died two days after his second elected term would have ended. Jerry Brown is currently serving a third term as governor of California, due to the fact that his first two terms took place before term limits were established (see ex post facto). Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Schwarzenegger served three and an half year (first term Nov. 2003 to Jan. 2007). As far as I know, he was term limited in 2010. --91.103.112.54 (talk) 06:21, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Native American cultures

Hello,

what are the characteristics of the Southwest culture, the Great Basin culture, the Plateau culture and the Subarctic culture? I ask because of this image.

Thank you for your answers!

Greetings HeliosX (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might find some of the articles in Category:Archaeological cultures of North America helpful. --ColinFine (talk) 16:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See:

We don't seem to have a specific article about the Southwest group. Looie496 (talk) 23:09, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is. It's at Oasisamerica and Prehistoric Southwestern Cultural Divisions, and covers the Anasazi, Mogollon culture, Hohokam, and Patayan. --Jayron32 01:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our lead article on this topic seems to be Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas, though it is little more than a collection of lists of ethnic groups. We seem to be lacking substantive articles on many of the cultural regions. Marco polo (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We also have Plains Indians. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 19:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds a bit like a typical textbook homework question, the above classifications are typically seen in most U.S. History textbooks these days, just FYI. On one hand, we would do well to have articles on all of these groups for that reason, but on the other hand, I suspect that the answer is already contained within the textbook and I don't think we are a homework-finishing service? (smile) Montanabw^(talk) 22:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]