Humanities desk
< October 20	<< Sep \| Oct \| Nov >>	October 22 >

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 21[edit]

religious parties with spiritual leader[edit]

Shas party of Israel has a Sephardi Rabbi Ovadia Yosef as their spiritual leader. Hezbollah had a spiritual leader, late ayatollah Mohammad Fadhallah. What other religious parties have religious scholars as their spiritual leader? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.72 (talk) 02:01, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Iran has an ayatollah as their supreme leader, see Ayatollah Khamenei. --Jethro B 02:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The mighty Christian Heritage Party of Canada has a Baptist deacon, Jim Hnatiuk, as its current leader. --NellieBly (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Paisley founded and led (politically, not religiously) the Democratic Unionist Party between approximately 1972-2009. He was an ordained minister in the Presbyterian Church; and minister and moderator of the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster. 213.120.90.59 (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arlington National Cemetery[edit]

Hi, my grandfather (1845 – 1940) fought in the American Civil War and I would love to have him buried in the Arlington Cemetery. What are the procedures and is it possible? Thank you indeed. Iowafromiowa (talk) 13:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See: Arlington Cemetery#Burial criteria. Following the various links to sources will give you further information. Blueboar (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

News coverage of Pussy Riot on American TV[edit]

OK, it's been over 15 years since I lived in the U.S., and maybe things have changed since then, but I can't imagine a network news anchor like Diane Sawyer using the word "pussy" on air. So how is Pussy Riot referred to on TV news in America? Or is the evening news there still as parochial as it was back in the '90s and nothing that happens outside the U.S. is mentioned at all? Angr (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it also has a non-obscene meaning of "cat" makes it OK. If the band was "Cunt Riot", they probably wouldn't say it. StuRat (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Freed Pussy Riot member: Putin influenced sentence. Bus stop (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The James Bond movie Goldfinger had a character named Pussy Galore all the way back in the 60s -- if that goes, anything goes. Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Although that wasn't on American TV, at least initially. I wonder when was the first time it aired on American TV, and was anything done to distort the name Pussy? Also, I remember that James Bond himself pronounced it /'pusi/ instead of /ˈpʊsi/. I've always wondered whether that was just Sean Connery's accent or whether it was a way around the censors. Anyone know? Duoduoduo (talk) 20:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't think there would be a problem with an anchor saying the name of the band on air (if necessary, they would just "bleep" over the potentially offensive word)... I am not sure if the issue has come up. It is true that the Pussy Riot story has not had much coverage in the US (and perhaps none on the major network news). I don't think it is due to parochialism... other international news stories have been covered extensively. Blueboar (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think wikt:pussy already is a euphemism, sort of like wikt:boys (the latter term seems to me to have only recently become popular). Wnt (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a dim memory that a blue movie was advertised in my local newspaper (Champaign, Illinois) as P.... Talk, in 197x. —Tamfang (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, when Goldfinger was first aired on US broadcast TV, the lady in question's name was overdubbed as "Miss Galore". 69.62.243.48 (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not all that long ago, I Love Little Pussy was considered an unexceptionable nursery rhyme... AnonMoos (talk) 13:05, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard plenty of discussion of Pussy Riot on NPR. They just say "Pussy Riot", with no bleeps or censoring. Some of this content may have been from PRI, but plenty originates from US agencies and reporters. Now, I suppose TV networks may have additional, self-imposed restrictions that the follow, but as far as I know, radio and TV broadcasts are bound by the same FCC laws, meaning that TV anchors could say it too. Lastly, it is humorous to hear the staid and solemn NPR anchors say "Pussy Riot", which I imagine is part of why the group picked the name :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now if you want to see something remarkably absent from the news, consider the action against Madonna for expressing pro-gay sentiments at her concert.[1][2] Even her Wikipedia article doesn't mention it. Wnt (talk) 16:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be that this thread has lasted so long without mention of Mrs Slocombe's pussy? --Dweller (talk) 09:14, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Language question: Does the "pussy" pun work in Russian in the same way as in English? HiLo48 (talk) 09:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm aware of. But the lexicon of rude Russian words is vast, and I don't pretend to know anything of its intricacies. Nothing would surprise me. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 10:52, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multilateral battles[edit]

Nearly all big battles have exactly two sides to them, even if multiple countries or groups are represented by each side.

Are there any examples of battles that took place with three or more mutually antagonistic opponents? So instead of side A vs. B, there was side A vs. B vs. C, all of which were equally interested in killing one another (A vs. B, A vs. C, B vs. C)?

I'm suspecting probably not, just because the logistics of such a thing would be difficult and generally would favor a third side waiting to let the first and second sides thin each other out, but the idea of it intrigued me so I thought I'd ask. --Mr.98 (talk) 18:41, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say communist chian under Mao, when the Communists fought Japan and the Nationalists, the Nationalists fought the Japanese and the Communists, and the Japanese foughtboth the Communists and Nationalists (since they're Chinese). Or perhaps the Boxer Rebellion to a certain extent, depending on how you view it. --Jethro B 19:08, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Continuation War is a very informative article to read ("There were even several cases of Jewish officers of Finland's army awarded the German Iron Cross, which they declined"), but I suppose it doesn't actually count. The Spanish Civil War, surely. Wnt (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What were the three or more sides in the Spanish Civil War? I thought it was just two coalitions against each other. For example, our article in paragraph three refers to "both sides in the war". Duoduoduo (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@ Duoduoduo : see Barcelona May Days . Later, during the Huesca battle, anarchists troops refused to attack, and the franquists kept Huesca...T.y. Arapaima (talk) 09:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin considered purging anarchists and Trotskyists more important than actually winning the war against Franco, and the NKVD was present in Republican Spain towards the end... AnonMoos (talk) 12:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know a real battle yet, but the final shootout in Extreme Prejudice is a movie example. --KnightMove (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

During the Crusader invasions of Egypt in the 1160s-70s, the Fatimids, Ayyubids and crusaders were sometimes fighting a three-way war. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your instinct is right, that they normally form two sides first, until one is defeated, then the remaining sides may fight amongst themselves. For example, in Syria, the rebels are composed of both secular and Islamic fundamentalist forces. It's quite predictable that, after Assad goes, they will then fight each other for control (with perhaps the Kurds joining in, too). So, in a situation of anarchy, then you can get everyone fighting everyone else. The Lebanese Civil War is a previous example of this. StuRat (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "battle" as in a one-day actual physical battle, or are you using the word as a metaphor for "war"? Because the first seems difficult logistically. --NellieBly (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean an actual battle, not just a war. There are plenty of instances of multi-party wars. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To add some magic to this, {{Infobox military conflict}} has a "combatant3" parameter to indicate a third, distinct combatant in a battle. Searching through the first few hundred examples of infoboxes that have this parameter instantiated, I've only found one real contender so far. The others are either fictional, between species of wildlife, or involved factions that just didn't want their own people killed. Perhaps more exhaustive analysis of this search would yield more results. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All of those except Narnia are interesting links — thanks! --Mr.98 (talk) 17:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to remember, in WW1, possibly in Tanzania, the British were fighting a battle against the Germans, and then the locals joined in and fought both sides, during which the British and Germans had a temporary armistice to fight off the locals. After doing so, they resumed combat. I can't find any references for this, but I read it somewhere. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 07:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You won't find the word "Tanzania" in any such reference. I'm sure you're aware of this, but just in case. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 20:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. It was German East Africa at the time. Sorry, about that. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 20:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the brilliant second sentence of our article on Yugoslav Wars:

he wars were complex: characterized by bitter ethnic conflicts among the peoples of the former Yugoslavia, mostly between Serbs (and to a lesser extent, Montenegrins) on the one side and Croats and Bosniaks (and to a lesser degree, Slovenes) on the other; but also between Bosniaks and Croats in Bosnia (in addition to a separate conflict fought between rival Bosniak factions in Bosnia).

Summary: what a sad mess. --Dweller (talk) 09:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "he wars" always are. Fighting women, on the other hand, are fun to watch. :-) StuRat (talk) 14:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

... in oil ... —Tamfang (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Problems concerning scientific prodigies[edit]

Sometimes you read media reports about ingenious wonder children who move to major cities and start a university career in math or physics at the age of 10 or so. However, I assume that such kids and juveniles often face a bunch of social and legal problems about which I'd like to know more - are there reports about such problems? --KnightMove (talk) 19:29, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The potential problems are not limited to "scientific" prodigies... the same issue can affect other prodigies (child actors, children with musical talent, etc.) Prodigies who are pushed into adult situations too soon often have sociological and emotional difficulties. Being gifted can be lonely... a prodigy may be intellectually ready for great things but may not yet be emotionally ready for them. Blueboar (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... what about legal problems? A child can't rent an apartment and live on his own. Or, at what age is this possible in the USA? --KnightMove (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of a child who attends university, the university will act In loco parentis... and assume the legal responsibility for the child. This is what happens when a child attends a boarding school. Blueboar (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may find this article an interesting read about the experience of Ruth Lawrence and the effect on her and her family then and now. Her father effectively dedicated himself to accompanying her, which solved the practical problems but not the others. - Ka renjc 20:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Child protection policies make it difficult now for universities to take on the in loco parentis role. A boarding school ought to know what it is doing, and should have a full range of support structures in place. A university is geared to work with young adults (and older adults), not children. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See minor emancipation, KnightMove. μηδείς (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'm not really sure how that's related. Judith's point is valid: Universities are designed to handle the social development of the average 18-22 year old, not the social development of, say, the average 12 year old. Doogie Howsers may be intellectually ready for advanced physics, but they may not be ready to be socially integrated into, or be at a stage of life similar too, their classmates at a typical University. --Jayron32 05:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instances of Dougies I've heard about, the kid has either attended a local university, or he lives with a parent or someone else looking after him. So not in a dorm.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:01, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]