Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 March 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< March 27 << Feb | March | Apr >> March 29 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


Contents


[edit] March 28

[edit] Invasion

I was learning about the invasion on the United States by Pancho Villa in World Histoy class recently, and a thought ocurred to me. How would the United States retaliate if, say, Canada were to invade Montana. Like if whatever army that Canada has were to to come into rural Montana and start taking people, putting them into jail at gunpoint and executing resistors, what would the US do? I'm talking about something set forth by the country, not a rougue attempt like Panch Villa's was. Thanks, schyler 00:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Topics proposed for debate belong at the many bulletin boards on the Internet. This is a reference desk, to answer authentic, answerable inquiries. --Wetman 01:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok Wetman, I know how the referene desk works. I was asking if there is a set way of how the United States would handle an invasion. Also, I have NO CLUE how you would think this would be a topic for debate. A topic for debate would be: "Invasion"---Should the Canada invade the United States, and how would they respond? As that was clarly NOT my question, I do not see why you thought that, but htanks for your input anyways. Very helpful..... schyler 02:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Schyler, I'm sure Wetman is not meaning to be unkind, but he is quite right: this is not an authentic question. I'm sure you know very well what the 'answer' is: if the United States was invaded, by Canada, or any other country, the President would take whatever military action was appropriate to the level of the threat, just as Woodrow Wilson did in 1917. Clio the Muse 03:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So pretty much the president just takes action and the people stand behind him. I was hoping it was somewhere in a document of some kind what action is taken in the event of a ninvasion on the United States. I still don't understnad how this isn't an authentic question though. Maybe I'm just not explaining myself very well. schyler 03:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You will find lots of documents dealing with the Pancho Villa episode, and probably plans for dealing with a possible Japanese assault on the west coast of the United States in 1942; but the kind of contingency or 'game' plans you are looking for will clearly lie deep in the heart of the Pentagon, subject to the usual levels of classification, and there is thus very little point in speculation. Do not worry about this: your explanation was perfectly clear. Clio the Muse 03:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The Pentagon might just dust off War Plan Red which was our pre-1939 plan for fighting the British Empire. The U.S. would have attacked Halifax with poison gas. It included contingencies in which Canada seized U.S. territory and the U.S seized Canadian Atlantic ports to prevent British reinforcenents and supplies from arriving. The Canadian war plan for fighting the U.S. at the time involved Canadian "flying air columns" to occupy Seattle, Portland, Oregon, Minneapolis and St. Paul. Simultaneous troop movements to converge on Albany, naval assault on Maine and bridgeheads along Niagara and Detroit. This was intended to buy time so British reinforcements could arrive to save the day. It would be imprudent and foolhardy for the U.S war planners not to have contingency plans for any eventuality. But given the results in Iraq, who can say? Edison 05:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how the supposition involves Canadians invading, I'd expect the US President would politely but firmly ask them to leave, after cleaning up any mess. DDB 05:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the Canadian army, with its half-dozen moose-riding hosers and pack of attack beavers, would require a lit-tle bit more than a request from the prez to retreat! Maybe? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, of course! He'd at least have to say "please." Clarityfiend 06:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
To further clarify my joke .. There are stereotypes of all peoples; Brash US salesman, Stoic English etc etc. For Canadians, a stereotype is politeness and selflessness. In one movie, some Canadian teens are enjoying themselves in a public swimming pool, when a guy asks them to leave. They all start leaving the pool, when one asks "Hang on, why are we leaving the pool, why can't they share?" "Dude, don't be selfish. They need it." DDB 08:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it's pretty clear what would happen if Canada invaded Montana. First of all, American men would be afraid to wear tuques in public for fear of being mistaken for a Canadian. Sean Penn would travel to Ottawa to offer his help. Of course, there'd be conspiracy theories about how the Bush administration was actually behind the invasion--or was it the Jews? The UN would pass a resolution condemning Israel. Fox News would air The Canadian Conspiracy. And, eventually, the U.S. would retaliate by invading Syria. —Kevin 14:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Brilliant! Clio the Muse 19:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, was I supposed to understand the connection between the Canada, Israel, and Syria? · AO Talk 23:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes.[citation needed] —Kevin 13:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hercules foot

I came across this article and was wondering what the story on hercules foot was... I found nothing of note looking around... http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page1014.asp 192.251.125.85 01:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC) bbwarfield

sorry it is number 8 the earl of aberdine entry 192.251.125.85 01:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC) bbwarfield

I can only presume it was the foot from a statue of Hercules. The British had no qualms about stealing artifacts from places like the Parthenon - see Elgin marbles. JackofOz 01:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
see "Ex pede Herculem", from The Histories of Herodotus, 4.82.—eric 02:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I found a reference to the foot here at Google Book Search (hope the link works). It's from the book Lord Aberdeen by Muriel Evelyn Chamberlain (1983), p. 42: "Aberdeen did apparently secure one relic of the Parthenon, a foot of Hercules from one of the metopes. It is mentioned among the goods he shipped home but has unfortunately disappeared." --Cam 02:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, Pythagoras didn't have an actual foot in hand:

ex pede Herculem. From this sample you can judge of the whole. Plutarch says that Pythagoras calculated the height of Hercules by comparing the length of various stadia in Greece. A stadium was 600 feet in length, but Hercules' stadium at Olympia was much longer; therefore, said the philosopher, the foot of Hercules Was proportionately longer than an ordinary foot; and as the foot bears a certain ratio to the height, so the height of Hercules can be easily ascertained. Ex ungue leonem, a lion (may be drawn) from its claw, is a similar phrase. ("ex pede Herculem", The Reader's Encyclopedia 1948)

—eric 02:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
What I would really like to know is how on earth was it possible to 'lose' something apparently as big as this stone foot? I assume that it did not simply walk off? Clio the Muse 03:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I would guess somebody has it but keeps it secret (knowing that they would be forced to give it back to Greece, otherwise). So, for now, it must remain a hot foot. Too bad, I can think of an ideal place to display it. StuRat 03:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Maybe Terry Gilliam has it?hotclaws**== 08:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...and where is the rest of him?

Really, we ought to be able to find a picture here, but so far i have been unable to even find a reference (besides the one from Cam) that states herakles appeared on any of the Parthenon metopes. He should have been on the east frieze which depicts the gods battle with the gigantes.—eric 06:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How long per year do the Swiss Alps stay open to Skiiers?

I'm curious because I'll be there in the Summer...and obviously chances are that there will be no snow, but who knows? Anyone know? If they arent open yearround, side question: what altitude/mountains of the world ARE skiiable year round? Thanks 140.180.9.227 04:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've skied at Zermatt, near the Matterhorn, in late June and early July! The season on the main slopes runs until May, but it's possible to ski in the glacier areas right into the high summer. Clio the Muse 05:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Back in the day they would be available for skiing all year. But global warming has had a devastating effect on the Alpine snows, and many peaks are now bare. 82.36.179.20 15:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] French explorers

I would like to find the name of the french explorer that has a county named after him in Wisconsin. Tyler —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.133.251.176 (talk) 11:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi, Tyler. I think you will find that Pepin County is named after Pierre and Jean Pepin, so you have two for the price of one! There is also St Croix County, named after the explorer, St. Croix. Clio the Muse 11:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The Dictionary of Wisconsin History has a list of place names in Wisconsin along with their etymologies. I haven't checked thoroughly, so I don't know if there are any other counties named after French explorers, but the list might make for interesting browsing. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 18:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Slavery

Britains involvement in the slave trade —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.252.99 (talk) 12:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

Cleopatra's involvement in the Senate Rfwoolf 13:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Atlantic slave trade may answer your question. grendel|khan 13:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What is it exactly that you would like to know about Britain's involvement in the slave trade, which was abolished by Parliament two hundred years ago? Clio the Muse 18:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Book Indexes

I'm reading Cosmos (but i'd guess this isn't unique to just this book) and in the Index, when some page numbers are listed, they are followed by an n. e.g. Cicero, 67 n.. What does this mean? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anthonymorris (talk • contribs) 13:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

The reference is probably to a footnote (note) on that page. Wareh 14:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This would indeed be a reference to a note on the page in question. Clio the Muse 18:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NFL Draft

I've read the article but I still don't quite understand a few things. Are all players who participate in the draft picked/drafted? I understand there are eligiblity requirements but if all players are drafted, how is someone chosen to participate? I would presume there are more people eligible then are drafted. Also what is a draft prospect? Someone who may take part in the draft or someone who is going to take part in the draft? Nil Einne 13:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There are far more eligible players than drafted players. The two basic tenets of eligibility are the 3-years-out-of-high-school criteria mentioned in the article and forfeiture of amateur status and thus NCAA eligibility. The latter is probably more a consequence than a formal criterion, for that matter, but it operates much the same. I'm pretty sure that a draft prospect must submit some formal notice of draft eligibility but said notice is fairly trivial (that is, while I'm not in the draft pool, I easily could be). A draft prospect is anyone eligible to be selected in the draft; the label is not a guarantee that he will be drafted. "Take part in" is a fairly vague criterion so I've tried to avoid it in answering the question. — Lomn 14:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
By taking part in the draft, I meant someone who makes himself available to be drafted. I would guess someone has to make it clear they are available to be drafted & based on that there must be some sort of list (aren't people normally present during the draft anyway?). Or are players drafted even if they don't want to be drafted (for whatever reason) because they are eligible and made to reject the draft? Anyway I don't really care that much & you've already answered all I really needed to know. I just wanted to check due to a notability issue (it confirms my suspicion that being a draft prospect is not likely to be sufficient in itself to be noteable since anyone who is eligble can be a draft prospect. If there was some sort of selection to actually become a draft prospect and everyone who was a prospect was drafted that would be different). Cheers! Nil Einne 15:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Typically, only those players expected to be very high (say, the first 10 or so of the 200+ picks) draft picks are present. Certainly players are drafted despite their wishes: notably, John Elway and Eli Manning were first-overall picks who forced trades to teams that did not draft them by threatening to hold out for a year (which nullifies the draft pick). If someone completely uninterested in professional football were drafted, he could simply ignore the result. — Lomn 15:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I think you're sort of confusing some of the terms here... Obviously, the NFL draft is nothing like a military draft - if one didn't want to play football, it wouldn't matter whether or not one was drafted. The term "draft prospect" is usually used to refer to players expected to be picked particularly high; the approximately 150th best football player in the country is likely to be drafted, but wouldn't really be considered a "prospect." Or, perhaps, he'd be considered a low-level prospect. At any rate, "draft prospect" is not a definition for which one has to be selected, but a label that is applied. zafiroblue05 | Talk 03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There are two types of players available in the draft:

  • Those who have completed their four years of college eligibility and are automatically eligible for the draft
  • Those who are at least three years out of high school and have declared themselves eligible for the draft, forfeiting their remaining college eligibility.

There are thousands of players in the first category, the vast majority of whom are not likely to be chosen or play football professionally. Even though someone whose college career is over doesn't need to declare himself eligible, it would be very strange for someone not interested in playing in the NFL to be drafted. Teams generally speak to potential draftees before the draft, and it would be common knowledge that a player was uninterested in playing profesionally.

This article in the Cincinnati Post explains what happened to the 479 people in the second category from 1990 to 2002:

  • 322 were drafted
  • 65 were not drafted but signed with NFL teams as undrafted free agents
  • 96 were not drafted and were not signed by an NFL team

As mentioned above, there is no official definition of "draft prospect." A PR guy at a small college might define his team's star player as a "draft prospect" in the team media guide, but that may just mean he's got an outside chance of being drafted at all. My personal opinion would be that any college player who is likely to be drafted is "notable," since there has undoubtedly a great deal of publicity written about him. Finally, it's relatively uncommon for players to be physically present during the draft, which lasts two days. Usually, players watch on TV and wait to get a phone call. -- Mwalcoff 23:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Twister/ Child in Time

Hey I was just wondering about Deep Purple in the movie Twister. Now, you hear the song Child in Time but the actual concert (California Jam 1974) which exists on dvd, says that the song list on it has no Child in Time performance. That's actually funny itself because when you look very briefly at Ritchie Blackmore's fingers on the neck of the guitar, it fits the song. In this concert, he's really playing Space Truckin' because that's where he changes his clothes to what you see briefly see on Dusty's TV. I'm just wondering why would the movie crew put that song as a recording to that little footage?Jk31213 18:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AMH:LOWELL MILL

WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE VISITORS ACCOUNT OF ACTUALLY WHAT WHEN ON AT THE MILL AND HOW THE OPERATIVES WERE TREATED? I THINK ONE WAS AN EYE WITNESS ; THE OTHER WAS SPECULATION FROM HEARSAY.WHAT IS YOUR OPINION? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.215.27.189 (talk) 15:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC).

see the caps key at the far left? press it.82.152.206.193 16:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, using all uppercase is considered to be a capital offense here. StuRat 17:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not the Blarney Stone

One of my earliest childhood memories is of being dangled over a precipice to kiss a stone. I would like to know where I was, and why it was desirable to kiss this stone.

It seems like I was on the stone battlements of a castle or fort. The stone was in the middle of an opening surrounded by a metal rail, and was hanging over a high drop-off.

During this time, we traveled up the Eastern seaboard of the US., and to Quebec, Montreal and Toronto Canada, as well as England, Belgium, Holland, France, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Spain and Italy.

Kittycathy 18:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Kitty, I am puzzled why your question has been headed 'not the Blarney Stone' when it so obviously is. The said stone is in the battlements of Blarney Castle near Cork in the Republic of Ireland, and kissing it, according to legend, accords powers of eloquence. Clio the Muse 18:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have never been to Ireland! Kittycathy 18:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is where the Blarney Stone is. Clio the Muse 18:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Clio is correct in saying that the Blarney Stone is in Ireland - but there is no way you could kiss it by being dangled over a precipice - I know - I did it. What happens is you lie on your back on the stone floor high on the walls of Blarney Castle, and two big guys take a hold of your legs and push you horizontally into space until only your Butt and legs are in contact with the stone floor. You then have to do a serious trunk curl and raise your head and lips to the underside of a large stone lintel (the Blarney Stone) and "kiss" it. As to the gift of eloquence - boy does it really work!! It's 40 years since I did it and everyone I know says they would love to hear me out but they just don't have the time. Dangle? Nah. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.240.73 (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
If the questioner says she's never been to Ireland and has denied it's the Blarney Stone, who are we to dispute her. JackofOz 23:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Probably an adult could simply lean over the rail to kiss this stone, and I remember being held out over the abyss because I was so young. Any ideas? Kittycathy 20:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps in a former life you were Bridey Murphy. --Wetman 08:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thatcher's Falkland's War vs Blair's Saving Grace

I was wondering what my fellow Wikipedians' opinion might be of the historical comparisons between Maggie Thatcher's 1982 turnaround in her then declining popularity when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands and Maggie so resoundingly defeated General Galtieri and his mob; and the last minute baton that Iran has handed Tony Blair by (apparently) wrongly imprisoning 15 UK Armed forces personnel whilst they were engaged on (apparently) entirely legitimate business in the terrirorial waters of Iraq. Was that bad timing on Iran's part or was that bad timing on Iran's part? Oh how Tony Blair and George Bush (also suffering badly in the opinion polls in his political dying days) must be breathing a sigh of relief and polishing up their respective "I told you so" CV's). But this is not a platform, it is a very serious question. Is there a likely historical comparison between these two events and their eventual outcomes? 81.145.240.73 18:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)81.145.240.73 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Topics proposed for debate belong at the many bulletin boards on the Internet. This is a reference desk, to answer authentic, answerable inquiries. --Wetman 19:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

They are not valid or legitimate comparisons. The Falklands' War did indeed come at a time of declining popularity for the British government, and a period of particularly low morale among the nation as a whole. The decisive action of Margaret Thatcher, arguably one of the best Prime Ministers Britain ever had, confirmed that the British nation is at its best when forced into a corner. I think Tony Blair has always, consciously and unconsciously, attempted to model himself on Mrs Thatcher, with mixed degrees of success. His 'Falklands' War' was the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which has proved to be a major miscalculation. The business with Iran, as far as I can determine, only serves to confirm this, and is unlikely to add to the popularity in any degree of a dying ministry. Clio the Muse 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy to read your contribution Clio - would you mind awfully editing your references above to England? I am Scottish and Maggie was Scotland's Prime Minister too, and that also of Wales and Northern Ireland, as is Tony Blair. It wasn't England who went to war with Argentina - it was The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland aka the UK. Thanks in anticipation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.240.73 (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
My apologies; I did not mean to offend you, and you are quite right, it should be Britain, not just England. It's a culturally conditioned reflex on my part, which I will do my best to amend! Clio the Muse 19:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
you've still left two erroneous English References above unedited!
They will remain as they are, because any amendments would render your contribution meaningless. Clio the Muse 19:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
With respect, Clio, I think the questioner has a point. If it's fair enough for you to introduce such personal (and irrelevant) opinions as "Margaret Thatcher, arguably one of the best Prime Minister's [sic] England ever had", it's fair enough for the questioner to respond in kind. Cheers JackofOz 23:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
My point about Margaret Thatcher was, I think, pertinent to the matter under consideration, because some direct comparison was called for. Thank you, Jack, for pointing out my grammatical solecism, which I am happy to have corrected! Clio the Muse 23:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Jackof for your support, but I still remain convinced that Clio is deliberately misssing the point - in that she has made a big mistake and cannot accept that horrendous fact. I still contend that she should have the courage to publicly apologise and correct her mistakes! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.241.229 (talk) 00:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
I did apologise earlier for the mistaken reference to Britain as England Clio the Muse 00:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. You refused to remove the erroneous references to "England", and "English" which, whatever your justifications, were misleading to those others who may have subsequently merely "skim read". You should tread carefully when proclaiming on strange territory. 81.145.241.229 00:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing more to add, other than regret. My very best wishes. Clio the Muse 00:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
On reflection, I decided to make the alterations you requested. Again my regards. Clio the Muse 01:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Please will all Ref Desk participants refrain from making personal attacks. Thank you --Dweller 08:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Once again, topics proposed for debate belong at the many bulletin boards on the Internet. This is a reference desk, to answer authentic, answerable inquiries. --Wetman 08:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of "I told you so" CV's ... Wetman gets the prescience barnstar. dr.ef.tymac 17:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he does! Incidentally, do American people understand the expression ' a storm in a teacup'? Oh, well: onwards, ever onwards, for England, home, and beauty. Clio the Muse 18:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
We probably more commonly would use the expression 'tempest in a teacup'; I'd hope the reasonably intelligent could easily connect 'storm' to 'tempest', although I sometimes worry for my countrymen. --LarryMac 14:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This isn't the Language Reference Desk, but I thought these Google phrase-search estimated hit counts might be of interest:
   "storm in a teacup"          310,000
   "tempest in a teapot"        298,000
   "tempest in a teacup"         35,800
   "storm in a teapot"           10,100
--Anon, March 31, 2007, 00:07 (UTC).

[edit] where

where is isle of wight in relation to bognor regis?

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/f/Wikipedia%7EReference_desk_Archives_Humanities_2007_March_28_c37e.html"