Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2011 January 20
| Entertainment desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < January 19 | << Dec | January | Feb >> | January 21 > |
| Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment 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. |
January 20
[edit]Islamic references in Little Mosque on the Prairie
[edit]
Which episodes actually used Islamic references in the tv show e.g. Prophets of Islam and their lives, wives of Muhammed (PBUH) and etc? So far, I remember that the second episode of the first season had an Islamic reference where Ammar mentioned that two ladies came to the Prophet Sulaiman to asked which one of them was the real mother of the baby and Sulaiman AS said the only solution was to cut in half because it was something to do with the barrier in mosque to segregate the women and men. any other islamic references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.149.76 (talk) 02:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Not directly pertinent to your query, but other traditions have a different, and arguably historically earlier, view of Solomon in general and the disputed baby case - the Judgement of Solomon - in particular, whose perspectives you might find interesting, though contrary to Islamic doctrine. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 14:49, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- "American Idol, Canadian Idol...we must smash all idols!" Haha, that was the funniest line that show ever had. (Actually, I don't watch it very often, so I don't know...there must be some other Islamic references, but the point of the show is not really to educate people about the subtleties of Islam, and most of the actors aren't Muslim.) Adam Bishop (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
help me name a film
[edit]This film i am about to describe to you has stuck in my mind and i would like the name please. it was on tv in the 70's a US pacific war drama, about a US soldier that befriends a horse. He for some reason i think was in a wheelchair, at the end of the film, they tether the horse, and sail away in a military boat. The horse breaks free and swims out to the boat, where the back is lowered (like a car ferry), horse gets on and nuzzles his wheelchair bound friend. This is all i can remember and bits of it may be muddled. thanks for any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.228.153 (talk) 14:07, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Parts of it at least sound like Gallant Bess...still looking. --Onorem♠Dil 14:20, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
MLB an anti-Canadian
[edit]Is this true that MLB is going to relocate the Toronto BLue Jays to somewhere else like how did it with the Montreal Expos? Does it mean that MLB is really an anti-Canadian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.89.43.44 (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- When I search for Toronto Blue Jays Relocation at Google, I see lots of blather but nothing to even hint that this is a serious possibility. In other words, it seems to be a fun topic for sports bloggers to ramble on about, but I don't see any serious commentary by anything official from anything connected to MLB to indicate that they intend to move the Blue Jays. The Expos were moved because they were financially insolvent and the fan base was unable to support the team, not because MLB hates Canada (after all, it was MLB that approved the placement of the two Canadian teams in the first place. Saying that they are somehow anti-Canadian makes no sense). I see no evidence that the Blue Jays organization suffers from the same sorts of problems the Expos did. --Jayron32 17:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have heard absolutely no rumours about this in Toronto (where one would imagine people might talk about it). The Blue Jays suck, and the stadium is never full, but they're not poor... Adam Bishop (talk) 17:47, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- "Major League Baseball" does not relocate teams. The owners of the teams relocate them. Then MLB approves the move. Corvus cornixtalk 17:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Except in the case of the Montreal Expos. Major League Baseball took over ownership of the team and orchestrated their move to Washington, DC. It is actually quite correct to say that MLB moved the team out of Montreal. It was a complex arrangement, but during the proposal to contract MLB by two teams in the early 2000's, Major League Baseball purchased the Expos from Jeffery Loria (during the same transaction whereby Loria bought the Marlins from John Henry and John Henry bought the Red Sox from the Yawkey family. When a court injunction stopped MLB from contracting the Expos, they were stuck owning a team they didn't want, in a market that couldn't support them. MLB sold the team to an ownership group headed by Ted Lerner as part of the move to Washington. While Corvus is technically correct that this is not the usual way that franchise moves occur, the unique circumstances that led to the relocation of the Expos means that one can say definitively that Major League Baseball itself moved the team. --Jayron32 19:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Professional sports occasionally have to temporarily "adopt" a club that is in trouble financially. The "financially" part is key. Professional sports are a business, and they were bleeding red ink in Montreal. It's got nothing to do with being "anti-Canadian". It's all about money. Washington, DC, was without major league ball for 3 decades there, but it's not because they were "anti-Washington", it's because the Senators weren't drawing flies there and the owner thought they could do better elsewhere. (I anticipate deja vu where the Nats are concerned, but that's another story.) The Minnesota Twins were also targeted (pardon the ironic metaphor) for contraction, which the teams' owners would have been just fine with, but it was used as a bargaining tool (let's not call it "extortion") to get a new ballpark built. Where sports franchises are concerned, the key to understanding the machinations is the Watergate slogan: "Follow the money." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's actually somewhat ironic that a team that USED to be the Washington Major League franchise (Mark I) is the direct reason that the current Washington Major League franchise (Mark III) is there in the first place. MLB was going to contract in 2001, and those teams being contracted were going to be the Twins and Expos. The Expos part of the deal was arranged by the ownership trades I noted above; however the owners of the Metrodome forced the Twins to play in 2002 by filing a Breach of Contract lawsuit against MLB and the Twins. So, MLB was stuck owning a franchise it didn't expect to own. The Twins, not being allowed to die by the owners of the Metrodome, meant that the Expos had to live too, because MLB scheduling requires an even number of teams. By the time the court issues were settled, the Twins had a tentative deal for a new ballpark, they were actually GOOD again, being a playoff team in 2002 and perenial contenders since then, and baseball suddenly had no one to contract. That left them with eventually placing the Expos in Washington DC. --Jayron32 20:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- So Washington is stuck with what they've got, and both former Washington Senators teams were in the playoffs this year. And adding insult to injury, the team once adopted by Washington fans, the Baltimore Orioles, have effectively returned to what they once were: The St. Louis Browns. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- And all that is old is once new again. --Jayron32 02:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- So Washington is stuck with what they've got, and both former Washington Senators teams were in the playoffs this year. And adding insult to injury, the team once adopted by Washington fans, the Baltimore Orioles, have effectively returned to what they once were: The St. Louis Browns. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
- It's actually somewhat ironic that a team that USED to be the Washington Major League franchise (Mark I) is the direct reason that the current Washington Major League franchise (Mark III) is there in the first place. MLB was going to contract in 2001, and those teams being contracted were going to be the Twins and Expos. The Expos part of the deal was arranged by the ownership trades I noted above; however the owners of the Metrodome forced the Twins to play in 2002 by filing a Breach of Contract lawsuit against MLB and the Twins. So, MLB was stuck owning a franchise it didn't expect to own. The Twins, not being allowed to die by the owners of the Metrodome, meant that the Expos had to live too, because MLB scheduling requires an even number of teams. By the time the court issues were settled, the Twins had a tentative deal for a new ballpark, they were actually GOOD again, being a playoff team in 2002 and perenial contenders since then, and baseball suddenly had no one to contract. That left them with eventually placing the Expos in Washington DC. --Jayron32 20:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Professional sports occasionally have to temporarily "adopt" a club that is in trouble financially. The "financially" part is key. Professional sports are a business, and they were bleeding red ink in Montreal. It's got nothing to do with being "anti-Canadian". It's all about money. Washington, DC, was without major league ball for 3 decades there, but it's not because they were "anti-Washington", it's because the Senators weren't drawing flies there and the owner thought they could do better elsewhere. (I anticipate deja vu where the Nats are concerned, but that's another story.) The Minnesota Twins were also targeted (pardon the ironic metaphor) for contraction, which the teams' owners would have been just fine with, but it was used as a bargaining tool (let's not call it "extortion") to get a new ballpark built. Where sports franchises are concerned, the key to understanding the machinations is the Watergate slogan: "Follow the money." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Except in the case of the Montreal Expos. Major League Baseball took over ownership of the team and orchestrated their move to Washington, DC. It is actually quite correct to say that MLB moved the team out of Montreal. It was a complex arrangement, but during the proposal to contract MLB by two teams in the early 2000's, Major League Baseball purchased the Expos from Jeffery Loria (during the same transaction whereby Loria bought the Marlins from John Henry and John Henry bought the Red Sox from the Yawkey family. When a court injunction stopped MLB from contracting the Expos, they were stuck owning a team they didn't want, in a market that couldn't support them. MLB sold the team to an ownership group headed by Ted Lerner as part of the move to Washington. While Corvus is technically correct that this is not the usual way that franchise moves occur, the unique circumstances that led to the relocation of the Expos means that one can say definitively that Major League Baseball itself moved the team. --Jayron32 19:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Ma Mere L'Oye Text
[edit]The Wikipedia website for the above titled music by Ravel says that text for Ma Mere L'Oye is available. Do you know how I would go about obtaining this text? Thank you very much. Ellen CAZZ800 (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
- Ma mère l'Oye is a piano work (later an orchestral one), so I suppose you mean the quotations Ravel put at the head of some of the movements in the score? You can find them all at the French Wikipedia page for Ma mère l'Oye. Going down to the "Notes et références" section at the bottom you'll find links to the full texts of the stories they're taken from. --Antiquary (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)