Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2016 October 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.

October 8

Is "pussy" one of the words banned by the FCC?

I was watching CNN earlier and one of the panelists used the word "pussy" (from the infamous Trump quote) and to my great surprise, it wasn't bleeped out. Was this just a technical error or is "pussy" not one of the words banned by the FCC?

This was around 6PM so presumably the prime time restrictions would be in place.Pizza Margherita (talk) 04:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The FCC guidance clearly says that there is no list of banned words - as it does depend on time and context. It would be very difficult to ban words which also have common inoffensive meanings, and which are only offensive in certain contexts. Wymspen (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Time: 6PM. Prime time.

Context: the "pussy" in this case unambiguously refer to women's genital, as in the infamous quote I referred to above:"grab her by the pussy". Pizza Margherita (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

See Seven dirty words and FCC v. Pacifica Foundation. There is no official list of such words (although all of the words that George Carlin used are prima facie indecent), so whether or not "pussy" is indecent will depend on (a) someone making a complaint, and (b) that complaint being upheld. This is an official FCC document regarding a complaint in 2001, where a (slightly) more offensive utterance than Trump's, including "pussy" and "bitch", was originally ruled to be acceptable: the ruling was subsequently overturned. Whether or not a similar complaint regarding Trump's words would be upheld takes us into the territory of legal advice. Tevildo (talk) 11:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The FCC has no power to regulate non-"free-to-air" stations for content. CNN is not a free-to-air station. Yes, this means CNN and any other cable/satellite channel could show hardcore porn 24/7 if they wanted to. The issue is that few advertisers would want to pay for it, and cable/satellite carriers would stick their channel behind parental controls, or drop them. --47.138.165.200 (talk) 12:08, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The word was also used in a sketch on Saturday Night Live on October 8, 2016, with Alec Baldwin as Donald Trump saying it. Of course, that show airs at 11:30 p.m. ET, so the rules are different.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 05:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Speaking generally and not specifically about the US, my understanding is that news producers vary their standards of censorship according to significance, with serious journalism much less subject to restriction if there is no practical way to cut the obscenity. See for example the My Lai, self-immolation and napalm photos from Vietnam, all of which ran uncensored even though they involve extreme violence and child nudity. Here in the UK, I've seen a high school textbook about Vietnam intended for 14-16 year-olds which included all of those uncensored too. If you just got interviewed as a vox pop for broadcast at 4pm and it wasn't an irreplaceable part of the segment, it would probably get cut. If it's a serious contender for the presidency discussing his approach to interacting with women...it could easily be argued that bleeping it would be equivalent to covering it up. Blythwood (talk) 15:38, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

WHAAOE - the three main meanings of pussy, the many double entendres, and thus why it would be impossible to ban the word. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Zsa Zsa Gabor was a frequent visitor to Johnny Carson's Tonight Show. As the tale has it, she once came on carrying a cat, which she held in her lap. She is said to have asked Carson, "Would you like to pet my pussy?" His fabled reply: "I'd love to, but you'll have to remove that damn cat." http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/zsazsa.asp

Joblessness rate in 1933 compared to1936

Does anyone know how much the unemployment rate in Germany was reduced by from 1933 to 1936?Hot-n-ready (talk) 15:51, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

It might be difficult to ever know for sure, as the Nazi Party was in charge by then, and would have no moral constraint on falsifying the figures, if it would help them control the population. Here is Joseph Goebbels, being refreshingly honest about lying: [1]. StuRat (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Be that as it may, a brief Google search brought up Weimar and Nazi Germany by Fiona Reynoldson (apparently a school text book), which has on page 63 a table referenced to Grunberger, Richard (1971), A Social History of the Third Reich, as follows:

• 1932 - 6.0 million
• 1933 - 4.8 m
• 1934 - 2.7 m
• 1935 - 2.2 m
• 1936 - 1.6 m
• 1937 - 0.9 m
• 1938 - 0.5 m

It's best to avoid information posted by the Institute for Historical Review which will tell you that Hitler was an economic genius and a very nice man but a bit misunderstood. [2] Wikipedia has an article Economy of Nazi Germany which I admit that I haven't read. Alansplodge (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Oscar Colin Morison and the First World War

I have written an article on the Royal Automobile Club Volunteer Force, a group of wealthy and adventurous motorists who set off with their cars to France in 1914 to act as chauffeurs for the General Headquarters of the British Expeditionary Force. I am trying to expand the list of Notable Members but have become rather bogged-down as it were. Does anybody know if our Oscar Colin Morison is the same chap as the "Oscar Morrison" (note the different spelling) mentioned in this article as a "well-known racing driver"? Our article mentions air racing but not motor racing. Our article also says that at "the outbreak of the First World War, Morison was commissioned in the Royal Flying Corps as a Second Lieutenant" but doesn't mention him driving around France as a civilian beforehand. Any help with this conundrum would be greatly appreciated. Alansplodge (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Frederic Abernethy Coleman, American citizen, "was one of the twenty members of the Royal Automobile Club who put themselves and their cars at the army's disposal in 1914" [3],(+[4],+[5]). He has a note about "Oscar Morrisson" in his account From Mons to Ypres (;;), 1916. Not mentioning a Second Lieutenant, and belongs to the R.A.C. Corps ( not the Royal Flying Corps ). --Askedonty (talk) 15:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

[afterthought] No guarantee that Coleman is a reliable source. I couldn't get to the previous pages, and radiators ( the object of the circumstance )were the usual piece in automobiles that was easily damaged. If ever Coleman did allow himself a convivial joke, Motor Sport Magazine could have innocently extrapolated after it. --Askedonty (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Faculty (division) in non-Western countries

How do countries like China, Japan or Korea divide the fields in their universities? Western divisions seem to come from one single source (University of Bologna). According to the source linked above everything is miscellaneous, divisions are kind of arbitrary. and what looks absolutely like this-is-obviously-the-only-way in one part of the world could sound crazy in other parts.--Llaanngg (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

That all medieval universities in Europe modeled themselves after Bologna is just one editor's unsourced opinion. Basemetal 18:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

The question remains, how can we divide universities into faculties/colleges? That European universities influenced each other seems obvious to me, although here there might be some differences too. --Llaanngg (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Take a look also at University of Constantinople that clearly couldn't have modeled itself after Bologna. It would be the other way round if at all. (See also Byzantine university) Basemetal 18:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I can't really answer your question in general but you can find many specific examples. Take a look at the faculty division of the University of Tokyo and you'll see that it is modeled very much after Western universities. The division of fields at the University of Delhi similarly looks more like what you find in a Western university than, for example what you could find at the ancient Buddhist university of Nalanda (for the latter see sections on curriculum, administration, etc; the modern Nalanda University seems to have gotten some inspiration from the ancient university since its faculty division doesn't seem to mirror the usual Western one). Even the University of Tehran in a country that proclaims itself anti-Western looks very much like a Western university and very little like the ancient universities or schools of the Islamic world. You can find many many other specific examples here on WP. In summary: it seems to me, after examining this admittedly very small sample, that the whole world is following Western models in this case. Basemetal 18:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• The last 8 edits at Faculty (division) are spam. Could a rollbacker get rid of them? Basemetal 18:10, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Definitely, spam. Llaanngg (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. Incidentally, any user can do this (for an article that isn't semi-protected) - WP:ROLLBACK just performs the reversion at the server end. See WP:REVERT for details. Tevildo (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Notice that there's variation within western universities. Some separate cognitive science like psychology and linguistic from social sciences like sociology and economics. Others just throw all of them into the philosophy faculty. Sometimes biology is bundled together with psychology. John — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.156.30 (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

founding fathers and demagogues

how did the founding fathers become so knowledgeable about demagogues? was it just reading Greek philosophy? were there recent demagogues that they had heard of or had had experience with? what other literature did they use? thanks173.174.122.119 (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

There's Oliver Cromwell. Catholics, in particular, might fear such a leader emerging in the US to persecute them, and thus wanted Constitutional protections against it. StuRat (talk) 22:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Come along now Mr StuRat, people who fight for independence under a flag marked "NO POPERY" would not be too worried about Catholic rights would they? Perhaps we could try to find some helpful references instead? Alansplodge (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This is rather the point. See Catholic Church in the Thirteen Colonies. There was extensive discrimination against Catholics, which could easily be envisioned rising to the level of violence seen under Oliver Cromwell, and we did therefore end up with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, protecting minority religions. Of course, all minority religions were protected, not just Catholics. StuRat (talk) 02:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Excellent link. The situation for Catholics in early America was actually worse than I had thought. Note that some states had a "religious test" for public office, which was likewise made unconstitutional at the federal level. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Oliver Cromwell is not an example of a demagogue. (Maybe Stu should take a look at that article to understand what a demagogue is). Oliver Cromwell was a military dictator who gained power as a result of his military skill. And he certainly wasn't the one that initiated restrictions on Catholics in England. I'm fairly certain Oliver Cromwell is not the kind of person the "Founding Fathers" had in mind when they used the term "demagogue" (assuming they did, which the OP's question seems to imply). The OP's question remains substantially unanswered and that's partly his or her fault because it is just too vague: what mention of demagogues in what document does he (or she) specifically have in mind? Basemetal 10:10, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

He retained power by supposedly getting votes from Parliament (although he put a lot of pressure on them to do as he wanted). And others also persecuted Catholics, but that doesn't eliminate the precedent showing that a nominally "democratically elected" body could severely persecute religious minorities. Some of his "democratic accomplishments":

• "He was elected Member of Parliament for Huntingdon in 1628 and for Cambridge in the Short (1640) and Long (1640–49) Parliaments."

• "...he dominated the short-lived Commonwealth of England as a member of the Rump Parliament (1649–53)."

• "On 20 April 1653, he dismissed the Rump Parliament by force, setting up a short-lived nominated assembly known as Barebone's Parliament, before being invited by his fellow leaders to rule as Lord Protector...".

So, like Joseph McCarthy or Hitler, he started out getting votes, before seizing power (McCarthy's power was not absolute, of course). StuRat (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Interesting that none of the above mentions the English Civil War, which Cromwell and the Parliamentarians eventually won, nor does it mention the Regicide. He got power by defeating the opposition in a war, not merely by seizing power. --TammyMoet (talk) 15:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. A demagogue subverts a democracy (or tries to at any rate) by appealing to the populace and using its support to carry out illegal actions, which allow him to seize power and finally all but destroy that democracy. There has to be this element of appealing to the populace above the heads of the institutions in place. To the contrary Cromwell rose to prominence because of his value as a military leader, and was chosen by his fellow leaders, not brought to power by a populace above the heads of those leaders, and those, the Parliamentary party, had gained power by defeating the other guys, the Royalists, on the battle field. "Cromwell was a democratically elected member of parliament" So what? That's not what brought him to power. That is in no way comparable with Hitler and the Nazi winning a "plurality" (not a majority) in a general election (which then led Hindenburg to pick him as Chancellor, even though Hindenburg had grave misgivings about Hitler; I'm simplifying: for details see Nazi seizure of power) which was essential in Hitler gaining power. Stu's just grasping for straws. If Stu is not able to see that the way Cromwell gained power has more to do with the way Napoleon I, Lenin, Mao, and Franco did it, than say Napoleon III, Mussolini and Hitler, then I think he can't be helped. Basemetal 19:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for what has been written so far. I am one-third of the way through the Hamilton biography and the author repeatedly mentions how important it was that the founding fathers understood so well the threat of potential demagogues. I would like to know how they knew this. Was it from their education- Greek and Roman literature. Or did they have more firsthand experience. I am not aware of any demagogues in the pre-revolutionary colonies.173.174.122.119 (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

If will be very hard to answer that if the author of that biography of Hamilton has nothing more concrete to say than that the founding fathers understood so well the threat of potential demagogues. At least he should tell you how he knows what the founding fathers understood, in other words point you to some concrete statements by those founding fathers. Basemetal 19:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

What is the meaning of Saint Francis of Assisi standing on a globe on this picture?

http://i64.tinypic.com/2zpqvdz.jpg

157.157.90.195 (talk) 22:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Just a thought: It looks like a cannonball. Could it be symbolism for conquering violence and war ? Or does the painting predate the use of cannons ? StuRat (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It's Saint Francis Of Assisi Embracing The Crucified Christ by Bartolome Esteban Murillo. See if you find an analysis of this painting somewhere that explains that ball. I couldn't. There definitely seems to be a symbolic meaning to it. And yes it does look like a cannon ball but I think it is a bit too big to be one, at least for 17th c. cannons. Basemetal 04:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Check out the 20 inch cannoballs at Mons Meg. StuRat (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

This is Saint Francis embracing Christ on the Cross by Bartolomé Esteban Murillo (on commons at File:Stfrancisembrace1668.jpg). Our articles about the painting on both the Spanish language Wikipedia (es:San_Francisco_abrazando_a_Cristo_en_la_Cruz) and Italian language Wikipedia (it:San_Francesco_abbraccia_Cristo_crocifisso) give the use of the ball as symbolising Francis' rejection of the earthly world. Nanonic (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

It would have been nice if they had some sources for that statement, as without them it looks awfully like just some editor's opinion. The Polish article has a link but I get an HTTP 500 so I don't know if I would have gotten anything more there. Basemetal 04:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed; however, there seems to be little discussion of the work available online, except some Catholic devotional tracts which don't mention the globe. Apparently the bizarre subject of the painting is a vision experienced by the saint. I did find a Murillo chalk drawing on the same theme, called St Francis Rejecting The World And Embracing Christ, so it is plausible that he is symbolically "rejecting the world" by putting his foot on it. It makes more sense than the cannon ball theory at any rate. Alansplodge (talk) 10:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

See also The Embrace of St Francis of Assisi of The Crucified, Francesc Ribalta, 1620.—eric 00:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

And not mentioned yet, the cherubs have opened to Luke 14:33. Nina Ayala Mallory. (1990). El Greco to Murillo: Spanish Painting in the Golden Age, 1556-1700.—eric 01:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Victorian literature

A book I am reading says "In some Victorian novels the deep attachment of the father to the son, sometimes in an unhealthy way, is very evident". My Google Fu has failed me. Is anyone able to suggest examples please?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This question belongs at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. One example is the titular characters in Dombey and Son. jnestorius^(talk) 20:20, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Um, this is Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Was the question moved? --69.159.61.230 (talk) 06:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes: [6] [7]. As a reminder, it's polite to make it clear you've moved a question if someone has left a response based on it being somewhere else. Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Now, back to the question? --69.159.61.230 (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it matters so much that you leave something in the original place if the OP is the one doing the moving, at least if there were no substantive responses although there's also no harm in it. Just that you don't leave the reasonable response looking silly. (The same as when you make a mistake in your response and someone points it out, if you're going to fix your original response you should make it clear you've done so.) Nil Einne (talk) 04:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Vanity Fair is a good - if not entirely straightforward - example: the father-son (and father figure-surrogate son) relationship drives quite a few of the storylines, but like all forms of love in the novel, gets very twisted (Rawdon Crawley's love for his son blinds him to his wife's blatant cruelty, Dobbin becomes a devoted foster father to Georgy (in place of his deceased cad of a father), andOld John Osborne pushes his son to marry a rich heiress for his sake, disinherits him when he finds he has instead married poor Amelia, and as a grandfather starts trying to avoiding making the same mistakes twice.) Smurrayinchester 08:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)