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.
I am trying to date some images of the Rif war, which date as far to 1923. On them a Spanish blocao is shown and six Schneider CA1 can be appreciated. Location is Tafersit. I know there was a battle on that site, and that two of the tanks were badly damaged. As the image shows all six, I assume they are intact; as consequence, they had to be photographied before the engagement. So I would like to know is (if possible):
- The date in which the tanks arrived on Tafersit
- The date in which they left the camp
- The date in which the battle begun
- The date in which the battle finished
- Regimental information about the Spanish forces defending the fort while the tanks were on there
The Wikipedia article on the Schneider CA1 says that during the Rif War, the six Schneider CA1 tanks first arrived in Morocco on February 28, 1922 and entered battle on March 14. They then fought alongside a company of Renault FT-17s and fought until 1926/1929. I haven't found any information beyond that. See also: [1], [2], [3], [4]. clpo13(talk)00:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trump is instantly President at noon but isn't allowed to discharge the powers of President till he finishes the oath. So Obama has to be acting president then, right? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no meaningful task he has to do during the short time span anyways. The machinery of the U.S. government carries on quite fine without Presidential attention for a few hours. It's a meaningless distinction anyways; arguably he's been discharging his powers since the election during the transition period; he has made nominations for his cabinet positions and confirmation hearings have been going on for weeks now. It's inconsequential trivia that he can't "discharge the duties" until the oath has been taken. --Jayron3201:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So if news of an undiscovered asteroid damaging Boston or a US version of the Norwegian rocket incident got to the podium at noon they'd just hurry up with the oath? Is he even allowed to learn the codes till he finishes the oath? Or does he already know special codes that won't work till noon? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason they couldn't give the oath at any time if necessary to do so. There is no necessary part of the oath, regarding time and place, excepting that he is given it. Calvin Coolidge was administered the oath in his downstairs parlor by his father; he promptly went back to bed. There's no hand-wringing needed; if things need to be done things will get done "but he didn't say the words yet. Guess we just have to wait and do nothing" is not going to happen. The U.S. is too well organized, and important action does not wait on inconsequential ceremonies. --Jayron3203:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there's no explicit constitutional requirement for the oath to be taken after assuming office rather than before. If he'd already taken it last week, that would still be "Before he enter on the execution of his office". Whether that would actually be deemed valid, if it mattered, is something we can only speculate on. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If immediate action required the President to ""jump the gun", i.e. have to use the nuclear football during the time period between noon and when he gave the oath, for example, or if it required Obama to use the codes after noon (but again technically before the oath), it is highly unlikely that such an event would ever be litigated. Which is why it is a silly thing to worry about. If shit needs to get done, shit will be done. --Jayron3212:50, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the OP intended to ask: If someone had the sad duty of using the "football" with the nuclear launch codes to respond to a nuclear attack, at what instant would that become Trump in place of Obama? Is there a single military officer who ceases accompanying president 44 and starts accompanying president 45? Is there a general in the airborn "Looking glass" command post who covers launch responsibility until there is a transition? Will the media note who in the sequence of presidential succession is present at the inauguration and who is left as the "designated survivor?" Edison (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as long-term goals, the idea was to enslave to rest of the world and have them serve the German people, so that would mean factories with slave labor would be located elsewhere, with local pollution, and goods fed into a "perfect" Germany. Of course, air and water pollution could still spread to Germany from those places, but at that time global pollution levels weren't yet very significant. StuRat (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed] badly on that. As far as I understand Mein Kampf (and boy, it was one to struggle through even parts of that monstrosity) and Nazi propaganda, the long-term goal was a racially pure "Greater Germany", taking in parts of France and Lebensraum in the east up to the Ural mountains, with the current population either germanised (if "of good racial stock") or removed. Forced labour was only a temporary means to that end - the ideal was the ArianAryan peasant working the land. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there would be a Greater Germany, but beyond that, as in the lands of the Slavs, which to him included Russia, they would be enslaved, along with everyone removed from Greater Germany and moved there. Working the land doesn't create much pollution, other than agricultural run-off. It's factories that are the heaviest offenders, and were so even more back then. StuRat (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution: "The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January . . . ."
Now, "noon" could mean the moment when the true Sun reaches its highest point of the day; or when the Mean Sun does so; or 12h00 local standard time. And orthogonally to that variation, it could mean the time at the Capitol, or local time, so that the outgoing President can still do stuff relating to the West for a few hours after he has expired in the East, and likewise the representatives of Hawaii and Alaska are the last to clean out their desks.
The representatives from Hawaii and Alaska, along with all the others, would have cleaned out their desks a couple weeks earlier, as Congressional terms began on Jan 3. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 16:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would there really be any point in a legal battle over the right to stay in office for a few more hours at most? As a purely academic matter, maybe someone can dig something up. But at the time the relevant clause in the Constitution was written, wouldn't things like clocks and watches (and fast interstate communications, let alone travel) have been in short supply anyways, making the issue practically moot? They would have had to rely on the sun's position, but would either the outgoing President or the new one care? Presumably, they started when everything was ready, and gave little consideration to the exact minute. Things moved much more slowly back then. Eliyohub (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This particular part of the constitution was adopted in 1933, so the people who wrote it were no strangers to precision timekeeping. That said, I have not been able to find record of a single law or lawsuit regarding the interpretation of this amendment. I dare say it seems to be one of the absolute least controversial parts of the constitution. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I realised my error as to timekeeping, but got stymied by an edit conflict. As I said, you'd have to be nuts to wage a lawsuit over a few extra hours at most in office. But the OP's question still remains, have any academics written about this issue, from a purely theoretical perspective? Can anyone track anything down? Eliyohub (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The theoretical issue is not just about extra hours in office; it's about making sure there is only one president at a time, for the whole country. (Compare with daylight-saving-time transitions where the clock changes at 2 am local time in each time zone, so there are periods when part of the country is on DST and part isn't.) --76.71.6.254 (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine a dispute between persons affected by the officer's last-minute act (or the incoming officer's early act), rather than over the officer's own interest. —Tamfang (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bet the courts would take a dim view on that kind of attempt. If the machinery of state proceeded as though a particular person was president, and the people involved didn't object at the time, it'd be a pretty desperate argument to try to quibble about the timezones not being exactly specified by law.
I don't think a judge would waste much time on an argument that the transfer of power didn't happen during the ceremony specifically designed for that purpose.
It seems like it's on the same level as people who argued that Ohio wasn't a state until 1953 because the original statehood paperwork was flubbed.ApLundell (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a legal boilerplate somewhere that means "All definitions are, by default, based on the timezone for Washington DC". This kicked off a further legal argument when daylight saving was introduced (and resisted) in 1942 because some opponents started to cause trouble in the house by raising fatuous questions as to who was paying for "the missing hour" of services like electricity transmission or railways. It was all a bit like the "Give us back our 11 days" riots over the Gregorian calendar. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since gender is a mental construct, gender role is a mental construct too. A person is ascribed a particular gender based on primary and secondary sexual phenotype, so are gender role. So the very concept of gender role can be described as a cognitive bias? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's more complex than that. Cultural, social, emotional, mental, and physical characteristics are all part of what makes up gender, and the fact that they aren't all merely physical doesn't make them "invalid" or "not real". The fact that one's gender role is in part determined by societal context does not make that role invalid, per se. Mental does not mean "invalid". --Jayron3213:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your assumption sounds to me a bit like Lysenkoism which was promoted in the Soviet Union because it fitted in with the political ideology rather than being based on science. Exactly what is a 'mental construct' and how does that idea apply for instance to [7]? Sorry I thought this was the Science desk not the humanities desk. Dmcq (talk) 14:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the book Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, Yuval Noah Harari argues Homo sapiens is the only species on earth that can cooperate flexibly in large numbers, because it has a unique ability to believe in things existing purely in its own imagination, such as supernatural creator, money, rights. Harari claims that all large scale human cooperation systems – including religions, political structures, trade networks – are ultimately based on fiction, i.e. mental constructs. Throughout the course of evolution, humans have developed abstract thought (humans are only animal to possess abstract though) which they utilize to imagine (mental construct) things like morality, norm, value, religion, political system etc. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Since gender is a mental construct" - that's debatable. (Not least dependent on whether you are using "gender" as a synonym for "sex"). Iapetus (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my frankness, but what a load of crap. The OP's question takes a political and ideological assertion as a given scientific fact and from that floating fantasy jumps off into even wilder speculation. Even in chimps, males form hunting and war bands, getting meat and patrolling the territory while females stay at home, caring for the young and collecting ants and grubs. This dichotomy of roles is known in every known early society, from the Bushmen of South Africa to the Paleo-Siberians to the Pirahã people of South America. Attributing political disagreement to forms of mental illness has a long, storied, and embarrassing history. μηδείς (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I opened google.com. I entered the search term "young americans for liberty" arrest and selected News articles. I received 429 results. Of these only about 6 refer to arrests for handing out constitutions and these all relate to an incident in September 2016 which certainly cannot be classed as recent. It appears that the activities of Young Americans for Liberty are not significant enough for any meaningful press coverage. Nanonic (talk) 14:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you type the name of each of those newspapers, and the phrase "handing out constitutions", you'll find the original articles. Here is one example. You can remove "Washington Times" from that search and replace it with any of the others and you should get good results. It should be noted that every one of those news sources you just showed in that picture is considered to have a specific political perspective in their reporting and editorial perspective, c.f. Fox News. I would also seek out coverage from sources from a variety of political perspectives (including apolitical and middle-of-the-road sources) to get a fuller picture. --Jayron3215:23, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Language peeve: cf. (Latin confer) means 'compare', not 'for example'; or are you saying that Fox News is a counterexample? And it takes only one dot. —Tamfang (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article I linked even says, "According to the college, they were in violation of school policy which states that students must get special permission before engaging in activism of any sort on campus, including distribution of literature." In short, they weren't actually arrested specifically for handing out copies of the Constitution. They're just a few nobodies trying to get publicity for themselves by creating a bogus issue. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:13, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being right-wingers does not give them any special privilege to violate the school's rules. One thing about right-wingers is that they often cry "Law and order!" Until it's applied to them, and then they whine about being persecuted. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 14:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being arrested for merely for breaking school rules (and specifically, rules against handing out leaflets) seems an incredible over-reaction to me, unless there is more to this story than reported here. (Regardless of any potential hypocrisy about "law and order, except when it applies to me"). Iapetus (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Arrested by campus security. It's entirely possible they had been warned before and/or were harassing people. Even if they weren't, the school has the obligation and authority to keep peace on campus. This looks like a case where someone was hoping for a confrontation, and got one. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:37, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's also entirely possible that the only thing they did wrong was brandish some small pieces of paper whose content, one hopes, is uncontroversial. Would you defend a school that forbids t-shirts and bumper stickers? How about if it forbids attempting to initiate conversation with strangers? —Tamfang (talk) 10:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If a high-income person who makes a six-figure salary but finds satisfaction and a good quality of life in a minimalistic or low standard of living (living in one's car), then is this person upper class or lower class? What about college students who come from high-income households but their parents still want them to apply for financial aid? Will they be considered less needy, and in that case, can the parent temporarily disown the child so the child will not be legally seen as related to a high-income person, and then legally recognize the child for inheritance? 107.77.195.95 (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Social class has a lot of ways to be defined. The simplest way it is defined is by access to Power (social and political). Power means different things in different social contexts, as does what gives people access to that power. In no society is wealth by itself the sole determinant of one's social class, and in no society is wealth not part of the equation. Social class is also determined by non-economic factors such as access to political structures, access to social networks, acquired knowledge of social conventions of that class, etc. etc. One of the biggest criticisms of the American socio-political discourse is the overreliance on money as the sole determinant of class. This podcast from a few months back by the (surprisingly excellent for a "comedy" website) Cracked.com does a great job of explaining that exact problem. A great work on social class is Ruby K. Payne's book A Framework for Understanding Poverty, which while it does deal with economics, mainly deals with understand class from a social perspective.--Jayron3217:19, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering in which social class do academics, writers and activists belong to? Academics and writers might not be that popular as some influential journos. They might not have large amount of financial capital. But some academics, writers and activists, particularly those who have written widely reviewed books or have got media coverage, may leave legacy after their death including wikipedia page. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I am trying to say is that not all people leave behind a posthumous legacy. There are many billionaires, but few leave behind a legacy like Henry Ford. There are many writers, but few leave behind legacy like H. P. Lovecraft. In which social class people with posthumous legacy belong too? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that "posthumous legacy" is a clearly delineated concept. Also, I'm not sure there is a bright line correlation between social class and what you might consider a "posthumous legacy". People of the slave class, often the lowest of the low in any society, have left posthumous legacy. See people like Nat Turner. I think that clearly, in general, access to power grants greater likelihood of leaving such a legacy; for example we have essentially a complete biography of every King of England, but almost no biography of the average 13th century Kentish shit-farmer. --Jayron3219:32, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Posthumous people don't have a social class, as they are dead and have lost everything. Until that happens they are likely to vary in social and economic capital based on the things they do have (power, money, cultural and social capital, etc). One should be asking what social class their surviving relatives belong to, and how that happens. Another way to discuss social class is in terms of class mobility, or lack thereof: class stratification and life chances provide some relevant definitions. -- zzuuzz(talk)19:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's a stupid distinction. They belonged to a social class when they were alive. Of course their corpses no longer belong to that class. I can't tell if you're being ironic or obtuse. --Jayron3219:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that your class when you are alive doesn't determine whether you have a posthumous legacy, and that if you do have such a legacy, you don't posthumously get moved into a "people who were influential after they died" class. Iapetus (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How can a legacy affect an individual? The value lies in the fact that they have publications, trusts, social capital, or whatever and not how they are going to be known in 50 or 800 years after their death. Their children on the other hand may be affected by a legacy. -- zzuuzz(talk)19:59, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Class is determined by your relation to the means of production. Most of the so-called middle class in the West, aren't, they are wage sla salaried employees (which would make them working class) who lead a middle class lifestyle (for now.) Intellectuals aren't a class but a stratum. The super-rich and the poor alike, are a rentier class who rent-seek off the middle and working classes and the 3rd World. Hope that helps. Asmrulz (talk) 06:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A few other definitions: in England, the class system is - in part - based on your heritage. Nowadays, the upper middle class are in general richer and more powerful than the actual upper class, who are the people descended from titled nobility, and conversely, the angry young men were called working class, even though they were playwrights and authors with considerable cultural power, because they had been born into labouring families in industrial towns. Smurrayinchester11:42, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; the nouveau riche or parvenu refers to somebody who has acquired wealth and power, but lacks the manners and contacts (and perhaps pedigree) to integrate into a higher strata of British society. A bit of a dated concept, but even fairly recently the stuff of British sitcoms like Only Fools and Horses where the hero attends a shooting party at a stately home equipped with a pump-action shotgun. Not entirely a British thing either, who remembers The Beverly Hillbillies? Alansplodge (talk) 16:25, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of gun did everyone else bring? What kind of party was it? Fox hunt? Shooting at targets? Here in the states the upper class does hunt birds with shotguns at times. I don't know if it'd be uncultured to bring a pump action instead of a more expensive kind. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would have been shooting at game birds, most likely pheasants as other game birds need more skill (e.g. partridge and snipe) or specialised tactics (e.g. waterfowl) to which shooters of unknown ability would likely not be invited. Target shooting would not be an activity for which a shooting party would be organised, and shooting a fox with a shotgun at a fox hunt would be a barbarity no-one would ever contemplate (although a lone gamekeeper might legitimately ambush a fox with a rifle).
The de rigeur gun for a British shooting party would be a double-barrelled, single action shotgun. Note that, although receiving an invitation to a particular shooting party (which might include staying at the hosts' Manor house or Mansion for the weekend) might well depend on one's social class, pheasant shooting in general is not particularly class limited and all levels of (rural) society may take part in it, none of whom would use a pump-action shotgun. Del Boy's offense was against a particular sporting code rather than a class faux pasper se. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.94.189 (talk) 11:57, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure everyone gets the concept of restricting the gun used now that deer are shot with modern sporting rifles. Perhaps we'll have semi-automatic shot-guns soon. Anyhow in Britain even now one can "lift one's station" just by adopting a posh accent. Dmcq (talk) 12:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks. I notice they are normally limited to two cartridges at most in the uk just like a double barreled shotguns. Dmcq (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Probably partly because UK gun laws distinguish between "shotguns" and "firearms", the latter being more strictly regulated. (If you are licensed to own shotguns, you can have as many as you like as long as you register them, but firearms need to be licensed individually, and will only be allowed if the police accept you have a good reason for having that particular firearm). These categories are legal ones, not technical ones, and shotguns that hold more than a certain number of cartridges are classed as "firearms", not "shotguns". (I can't remember the exact definition - I'll look it up later and amend this). Iapetus (talk) 13:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking for material regarding the 2014 Sinjar massacre and particularly the U.S. intervention in Iraq to protect the Yazidis in the region. Thanks!
As of the end of the campaign, 1,232 revisions on 879 pages, by 327 users in 9 languages used the hashtag #1lib1ref in the edit summary with the total edit count estimated to be around 50% below the actual number. – This I find cery confusing – could somebody please explain what is supposed to be meant by the bold phrase? I think, this should also be stated more precisely in the article itself, by the way. Best regards--Hubon (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Loraof: Thanks for your confidence, though I'm afraid I might not have understood the source linked by you totally correctly – at least my knowledge of English probably won't suffice to formulate a good and concise summary for the article (I'm not a native speaker...). Best--Hubon (talk) 20:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
![[11]](https://i.redditmedia.com/kBkO2i81f7wchh7rSPbVcb5-FhhB2UPIyRoYYzKwQhk.jpg?w=320&s=3813a13e73acc63367931efe171d8904){kind=link}