Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 September 9

<

She's 61 ! StuRat 00:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was just as cringe-inducing when she first started doing it. Vanilla Ice was nothing new in that respect. --Kurt Shaped Box 00:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A donkey eating figs is funnier. This can be classed under "ask a silly question…" MeltBanana 00:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I like Blondie and think that Debbie is a fine old MILF but rapping just doesn't work for a woman of that age. --84.65.57.64 01:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She wasn't "that age" when she recorded it, and I seem to recall it was one of the first "rap" songs to make in in the mainstream consciousness. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So in pop she was the original. Everyone else is just a copy and should therefore look funnuy to you. Most of them do to me. Unless they're really original rappers like The last poets. DirkvdM 12:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder how many pop singers were over 30 when they first became famous. —Tamfang 04:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it hereditary for..

Is it hereditary which side of your body is longer (or bigger if you want to use that word)? --Rains

Both sides of your body are supposed to be the same size, unless you include slightly better developed muscles on the right side for the right-handed and the left side for the left handed. If so, I believe that handedness does have a genetic component. StuRat 02:47, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nay, i've heard that everyone has one leg that's longer, one arm that's longer, etc., meaning that whole side is usually longer-- is this inherited? Also I personally don't believe left-handedness is hereditary. I knew a left-handed girl whose parents and so on were all right handed.--Rains

I suppose we need to define what we mean when we say "one side longer". There may well be tiny differences, but I'm saying it's quite unusual to have one side measurably longer, such that orthopedics are required to compensate (special shoes, etc.). Note that there is a considerable difference in the commonly measured lengths of arms and legs based on how you stand. However, using an X-ray, a reliable comparison ought to be possible. I would guess some 99% of the people have both femurs within, say 1% length difference of each other. As for inheritance of handedness, I didn't say it was 100% genetic, just that there is a genetic component. This means a child can have different handedness than their parents, but there is some correlation between the handedness of the parents and offspring. StuRat 08:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a fun illustration of our lop-sidedness: Start with a straight-on digital photo or scan of a photo of your face.(Not a photo at an angle.)Use Photoshop or another image program to make two half-faces, split down the center. Make each into a full-face by flipping and joining to the original. You can now see how dissimilar the two halves of a face are. One may look friendly while the other looks unfriendly. Feet are often a half-size different, each eye requires a different eyglass prescription, and a tailor marks each pant leg defferently. We are assymmetrical. In studies of what makes a face attractive, greater symmetry is regarded as positive. Edison 00:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there would be more genetic pressure to have nearly the same length legs, however, as a large difference would have made it difficult to walk and therefore difficult to pass on the defective genes, at least before the situation could be accommodated with medical treatment or special shoes. StuRat 02:18, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Example of what I meant ( I should've put this at the beginning) is that the left side of my chin is BARELY lower than the right side of my chin, I suppose because of my "chin bone =P," but my moms, grandparents, etc. chin's right sides are SLIGHTLY longer, instead of left... so it's not inherited? --Rains?

My completely uneducated guess on this is that such slight variations are probably as likely to be developmental as they are to be genetic. Things like head shape are often determined by diet, lifestyle, and prenatal conditions (which is not to say that they don't have a genetic component as well, of course). --Fastfission 15:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Veil of Veronica

I was talking to my brother awhile ago, and he had brought up a history point to which I have yet been able to come across any more information:

He had said that in about 200AD (I can't remember the actual time frame, but it was before 500AD), jesus had been reborn as a woman named Veronica, and that due to the power the Christian church had been gaining, as well as their following the teachings of St. John against women, they burnt the town she lived in, and had it labeled as an accident.

Apparently, she had been able to perform many of the same miracles that Jesus had been known to have done, as proof of her being the second coming of the Christ.

So, the question: Could anybody here give me any more information on this topic, or at least point me in the right direction? --Slokunshialgo 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard this story, which doesn't mean it didn't happen, but this story has nothing to do with the Veil of Veronica. Veronica was supposedly a woman who wiped Jesus' face with her scarf as he was struggling with the cross along the Via Dolorosa, and the blood from his face left a stained image of his face on her veil. Thus the Veil of Veronica. Of course, it's probably worth noting that "Veronica" is probably a corruption of "vera icona", or true image. Or something like that. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention one thing, which is what had actually brought it up (And the name): The nazis, in their attemots to gather a single world museum, had come across the veil of this women, which had kept the shape of the woman's face, like that of Jesus apparently did (Haven't read that part of the bible). In addition to this, she was also claimed to have done the ressurection bit 3 days later. (One of the miracles that I went over in the first part) The nazis had used this secret of the church to help keep their power base, as the Pope did not want the secret getting out, which made it possible for the Pope to not tell the Germans to stop doing what they were doing. --Slokunshialgo 02:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything that Slokunshialgo has posted here is total nonsense. Zoe had the right of it. B00P 03:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE!! — [Mac Davis] (talk) (Desk|Help me improve)

The truth is in the Bible. Luke 17:23-24:

"Reports will reach you that the Son of Man has returned and that he is in this place or that. Don't believe such reports or go out to look for him. For when the Son of Man returns, you will know it beyond all doubt. It will be as evident as the lightning that flashes across the sky." (NLT)

And Luke 21:8 (Jesus speaking):

"See that you are not led astray. For many will come in my name, saying, 'I am he!' and, 'The time is at hand!' Do not go after them." (ESV)

BenC7 09:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like it might be a version on one of the Gnostic stories about Sophia. - SimonP 00:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It reminded me vaguely of Montanism. Rmhermen 03:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Life Church

Would it be against christen teaching and beliefs to become an ordained minister for the Universal Life Church?

I would say yes. The ULC basically seems to say "As long as your beliefs are non-violent, that's OK". The Bible, however, says that there is only one truth, in a number of places. Consider (as one example of many) Galatians 1:8:

"But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed."

This is obviously not accomodating of the ULC belief "Believe whatever you want, as long as it's peacable". BenC7 09:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How practical and powerful was Paul's concept! "I curse you, angel of the heaven!" Poof, there lays a fallen angel, with feathers slowly floating down in the air ... -- DLL ^{.. T} 15:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it serves the angel right for laying. Angels aren't supposed to be having sex. :--) JackofOz 22:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sex? With all those feathers flying around, I thought it was a different kind of laying. Anchoress 22:27, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may very well be right. Eggs are laid, after the hen gets laid. Depending on their preference, some angels might be lying down when they get laid, but no eggs would be laid as a result (not even incorporeal spiritual eggs). But I'm only a lay person about all this, so I might be lying. (Hell, what a confusing language). JackofOz 22:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, hens lay eggs whether they are fertilized or not. If this wasn't true, eggs we eat would have a lot more gristle in them. :-) StuRat 02:13, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, very true, O Wise One. However this is now completely off the topic that I oh-so-subtly introduced, namely, that Harvestman's "there lays a fallen angel", rather than "there lies a fallen angel", did not escape the all-seeing eyes of the Perfect One. JackofOz 07:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that signing up for a church you don't really believe in would be against the spirit of Christian beliefs, though I don't know of any specific section of the Bible which says "Don't sign up as a minister to religion you don't really ascribe to, even if you are just doing it so you can marry people legally in your state." But in the end, I doubt Jesus would place it very high on his priority list in terms of "things you should or shouldn't do with your life." --Fastfission 15:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are U.S. originated works whose U.S. copyright has expired also out of copyright in the U.K.?

I have read that, for works first published outside the UK or EEA, the copyright term of the country of origin applies, if it is shorter than the UK term. However, the Copyright law of the United Kingdom article contains (deliberately?) vague language that makes me wonder if this is always the case, and I think I read somewhere that there was a cut-off date - e.g. if the work was out of copyright in its home country by January 1 199x, then it is PD in the UK too, otherwise the UK term applies.

Can anyone confirm whether literary works by U.S. authors, first published in the U.S. and before 1923, are all automatically out of copyright in the UK? And what about U.S. works whose U.S. copyright has expired due to non-renewal? --CarelessHair 03:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read Wikipedia:Copyright and especially Wikipedia:Public domain. Batmanand | Talk 09:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Especially the section on the "Rule of the shorter term" in the latter article. --Fastfission 15:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tennis championships

The news says re Agassi that he is one of 5 who have won all 4 major championships - U.S. Open, France, Australia, Wimbledon. Who are the others?? --Dumarest 20:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only other man, I believe, is Rod Laver. In terms of the women, Margaret Court, Serena Williams, Steffi Graf, Martina Navrátilová and Chris Evert all won all four at some point in their careers. So, including Agassi, there are 5 others, not 4.

But note: this only refers to the Open era. Go to Grand Slam (tennis) to see more. Batmanand | Talk 20:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a confusion here between the original "Grand Slam" (also now called a "True Grand Slam") and later variants of that concept, eg. career Grand Slam. A career Grand Slam is where a player wins all 4 events over the course of their career. In men's singles, the only 3 who did this without doing so in a single year were Agassi, Fred Perry and Roy Emerson. The only ones who did it in a single year (ie. the original "Grand Slam") were Don Budge and Rod Laver (twice). However, women have fared better than men in Grand Slams; and doubles are a different story again. JackofOz 22:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Longest drum solo in rock music?

Does anyone know who holds the record for performing the longest ever drum solo in rock music? --Kurt Shaped Box 21:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Perhaps I should amend that to 'longest ever recorded drum solo'. I mean, some guy could've sat drumming away non-stop for 48 hours in his sound-proofed garage and no-one would know about it... :) --Kurt Shaped Box 21:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's the longest, but John Bonham's 30min solo on "Moby Dick" from The Song Remains the Same is the longest I'm aware of. Natgoo 22:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to mention that one. But on my version of 'The song remains the same' it's not quite that long. That's an lp. Did they maybe put a differnt version on the cd? (So the song remains the same but the perofrmance doesn't.) Another long (and good!) drum solo is on Sweet Smoke's 'Just a poke'. DirkvdM 07:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet Iron Butterfly's In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida has the longest drum solo to get extensive radio airplay. In concerts, of course, drum solos went on much longer than on studio records. Jimmy Page appreciated Bonham's live solos because it gave him a chance to go take a leak. --Kevin

I believe the drum solo of In-a-Gadda is 2:30. The article, oddly, doesn't say. —Tamfang 04:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

drum solos are like sneezes;you know they are coming but can't do anything about it(hotclaws**== 17:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Art Schools in Latin America

What are the most well known / largest art schools in Latin America, ie for undergraduate and graduate fine arts studies?

William Lynch

Can any one recomend a book (biography, history) about Captain William Lynch? Thanks!

Jackie Robinson Quote

Hi: I'm looking for a specific quote by Jackie Robinson. I believe it was to his wife, Sharon, before he made his debut with the Brooklyn Dodgers: something along the lines of "You'll be sure to recognize me...I'll be the one wearing number 42". I'm not sure of the exact phrasing, but if you could provide a link I'd be quite grateful.--Lkjhgfdsa 22:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw an example of pretty much the reverse situation, when Paul Simon (very white), in a leisure suit, was touring with Ladysmith Black Mambazo (very black), in tribal dress. The caption of the picture read: "Paul Simon (the one wearing glasses) performs with Ladysmith Black Mumbazo". The reason that they did this is that the newspaper had a policy that "the races of individuals shall not be disclosed, unless the story is specifically about race". StuRat 02:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether I think that a silly idea or not. Certainly "Paul Simon (the white one)" brings up a lot of negative feelings in me, which is concerning. If anyone figures out the exact quote, add it to Jackie Robinsons Wikiquote page! freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 08:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't really need to identify Paul Simon at all, as the few who didn't already know he was white would probably guess that he, not being a member of Ladysmith Black Mambazo, was the white one. StuRat 08:29, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can think of circumstances almost as strange, like the name of the Grand Wizard of the Klu Klux Klan, Mr. Black. freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 13:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this, On Robinson’s first day there was a huge crowd at Ebbets field and one of the better stories has it that as he left his apartment, Robinson kissed his wife Rachel and said "Honey, when you look down on the field, you’ll recognize me … I’ll be wearing number 42." Sound apocryphal to me.

By the way, I saw a picture of Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou once that was labelled "Tom Hanks (left)..." Adam Bishop 20:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I found another version here.--Lkjhgfdsa 21:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those articles state their sources, and they have conflicting versions of the same quote! freshofftheufo ΓΛĿЌ 03:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]