Entertainment desk
< January 6	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 8 >

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 7

Hip hop

in hip hop, what the rules say about forming a hip hop group? for example: can girls form their own hip hop group? can girls outnumber boys in a hip hop group? what is the maximum number of members can form a hip hop group? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.250 (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rules? What rules? Woogee (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, not sure there's any rules. There have been girl-only hip-hop groups (Salt-n-Pepa), there have been rather LARGE hip-hop groups (Wu-Tang Clan had about 9ish members). There are no rules, do whatever you want. You have friends that want to rap together? One of you good at spinning discs? Someone else good at production techniques? Do whatever, have at it... --Jayron32 02:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Max. no. = 6,794,800,000. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the off chance you are planning to take part in a Hip Hop competition, I suggest you ask the competition organisers what their rules are, if any, for Hip Hop groups in their competition Nil Einne (talk) 10:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Video Games

Ugh! I have a question about this video game, but I forgot the title of it. Let's see, the video game is military styled and there's this one level where there is two military soldiers in a train, and they have to go find some guns, amo, etc, and then they open this door to go on the outside of the train car. They go outside, and they have to kill this "crazy bat guy." He has a bunch of bats flying around him, and you have to start shooting at them, and then you have to stay behind crates and in the lights, so the bats won't kill you. First off?. What game is this? Second, how do you kill the Evil Bat Guy?! It's so hard! Thanks.

Moptopstyle1 ("I Feel Fine.") (talk) 06:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What system were you playing this game on? Does it use a gamepad, or is it a light-gun game? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 09:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're actually playing the game, turning it off and on again should bring up the title screen. Or the name should be on the disc somewhere. Vimescarrot (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A google search led me to this yahoo answers page. Sounds like you're trying to kill General RAAM from Gears of War. That page has a couple of strategies for the fight. --Onorem ♠Dil 16:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh haha! it's Gears of War! and the thing is, it is not my game! It's my bro's. so. He plays it on XBOX 360. Moptopstyle1 ("I Feel Fine.") (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

American radio station names

Here's something that's been bugging me for a while. So you watch an American movie, somebody is driving down the road somewhere in the Great plains, they turn on the radio, and the anouncer goes: "You're listening to KWXZ!" Those ever present four capital letter radio station names... What do they mean? Are they arbitrary? I would imagine not. Can you somehow tell the frequency from them? TomorrowTime (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Callsigns in North America. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) They're the radio station's broadcast callsign. These three or four letter combinations, which are unique to the USA, Mexico, Canada, Japan, and the Phillipines, are assigned to radio and television stations by the FCC to assist recordkeeping. The FCC requires stations to identify their callsign and city of license within ten minutes of the top of the hour. They are quite arbitrary; applicants for an FCC license can choose whatever callsign they want, and usually they have to do with the station's "on air name", rather than its frequency. The only thing you can tell is that (for the most part) callsigns beginning with W are located east of the Mississippi River, and callsigns beginning with K are located west of the river. Occasionally you may see a suffix to differentiate an FM or TV station from an AM (MW) station with the same callsign. A few examples: WWEG "106.9 The Eagle" is located in Maryland, WNCX "98.5 NCX" can be found in Cleveland, WVRX "105.9 The Edge" can be found in the nation's capital, and KCBS-FM "93.1 Jack FM" (owned by CBS) is located in Los Angeles. Xenon54 / talk / 11:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys. I've been looking for an article on this, but not knowing the basic terminology, I didn't come up with much. TomorrowTime (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusingly, KCBS (AM) is in San Francisco. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, is there a website which shows a list of all of the callsigns and the cities they are located in? Both radio and TV? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there is. I'll see if I can find it later today, although someone else may have done so by then. One thing to be aware of is that call letters that were assigned in the early years were grandfathered in, which is why you have 3-letter call signs WGN and WHO, for example (WGN stood for "World's Greatest Newspaper", as it was and is owned by the Chicago Tribune company). And you have stations like KDKA in Pittsburgh, which is east of the Mississippi. WCCO is west of the Mississippi, and the letters originally stood for "Washburn-Crosby Company", the predecessor of General Mills. And early network affiliates carried their affiliation, like WCBS in New York and KCBS in San Fran. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This interesting link[1] from the call sign article, lists the exceptions to the standard naming rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good websites (besides Wikipedia) for finding broadcast stations are radio-locator for radio, and TVFool and RabbitEars for television. All require at least a city name or postal code in the US or Canada (additionally, RabbitEars and radio-locator can search American territories). As far as I know there is not one website just dedicated to listing all the callsigns; radio-locator and TVFool are intended to help a user find stations that are recievable in their area, while RabbitEars is meant to list and provide technical data for all television stations located in a certain region.

Wikipedia does have a list of three-letter broadcast callsigns in the United States - these are considered unusual because (with the exception of KHJ, WJZ, and WJZ-FM) they are not assigned anymore and cannot be reassigned once they are "dropped". Xenon54 / talk / 20:13, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, stations will often try to choose something that is close to a real word. For instance, a station near a major river may choose something like WRVR (don't know if that's a real station or not) since the RVR part 'sounds' like the word 'river'. Or they may go with something like WFOX and the on air name would be "The Fox". This way, in advertising, they can use a fox as their mascot. This was used for satire in the television show WKRP in Cincinnati. WKRP had a rival station which had the call letters of WPIG. During one episode, two guys dressed up as the mascots for their stations (WPIG was, of course, a pig and WKRP was a carp) get into a fist fight. This eventually gets them arrested from what I recall. Dismas|^(talk) 03:04, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One classic real-life example is WACO in Waco.

The part about "unique to the USA, Mexico, Canada, Japan, and the Phillipines" is wrong; call signs are assigned on a worldwide basis and apply to other sorts of radio transmitters besides broadcast stations. Each country is assigned one or more national prefixes and allocates the rest of the call sign. It's just that in some countries it is customary to use the call sign as the station's public identity (or it has been; in recent years the marketing people have shifted more to names like "News 97.3"), and in other places it isn't. In Canada, the prefixes for radio and TV stations are CF through CI, while VE is used for ham radio. However, the CBC wanted to have call signs starting with CB, which is a prefix belonging to Chile, and was able to negotiate that. For example, their TV stations in Toronto are CBLT (broadcasting in English) and CBLFT (yes, five letters; broadcasting in French).

In the US, there are four prefixes: W, A, N, and K. I think A is military while N is used for civilian aircraft (for which the rest of the call sign is all digits). --Anonymous, 20:21 UTC, January 13, 2010.

Female "Barber Shop Quartet"

I am looking for a female version of a barber shop quartet that sings contemporary songs on iTunes. Does anyone have any suggestions? --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something like the female verision of Straight No Chaser (a cappella group) --Reticuli88 (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a couple listed at Barbershop music#Female Barbershop music and "Beautyshop" quartets. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's an organization called "Sweet Adelines" that I think are female a capella. More of an amateur organization, I think. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try our article: Sweet Adelines. --Thomprod (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maxx Factor is an all-female barbershop quartet who competed in the NBC series Sing-off. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Television during the 9/11 attacks in the US.

I'm from the northeast coast and when the 9/11 attacks were happening, we were all glued to CNN. However my friend said that she had no idea the attacks were happening bc she was watching a movie on HBO and didn't find out until after the movie was over and she switched channels. I forgot what was cable like on that day. I do remember that CNN didn't air any commericals that day (I think). Was it the same for other channels? Were there some channels that didn't cover the attacks at all and it was business as normal? --Reticuli88 (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much only the news channels were all commercial free, because of 9/11. If it was a non news channel, they kept on their business.Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 14:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the regular over-the-air networks also had a lot of coverage. Entertainment channels like HBO don't do that kind of coverage anyway, so it would have been business as usual. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about commercials, but ESPN had pretty much constant coverage, as well - focusing on the New York teams, the impact on Baseball and Football, etc. They also mirrored ABC's coverage for the early part of the day. MTV and its networks, meanwhile, rebroadcast CBS news, as I recall. Not sure when they switched to standard programming (coverage + commercials), but that'd be an interesting question as well. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 17:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything resembling live-hosted programming might have covered the 9/11 attacks. I expect pay channels like HBO and normal cable channels like Discovery would have carried their normal programming. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Odds and ends: I believe ESPN simulcast ABC News' coverage, only breaking in the evening to show a half-hour SportsCenter to list all the events that were cancelled. I know C-SPAN took CBC coverage. Likely the Turner-owned pay channels simulcast CNN, the NBC Universal-owned pay channels simulcast NBC or MSNBC, and the Viacom-owned pay channels took CBS. Other pay channels probably didn't have the means to run coverage and thus continued programming. (An interesting fact: the ubiquitous and quite annoying news ticker debuted on Fox News Channel during the all-day coverage.) ABC, CBS, NBC (and probably Fox) obviously ran continuous coverage for the day. Video of at least the first part of network coverage, as well as local coverage from the Washington affiliates, is available on the Internet Archive. Xenon54 / talk / 20:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it was 9/11 that triggered that bottom-line thing. Once something starts, it may never stop. ABC's Nightline began as a series of nightly specials covering the taking of the hostages in Iran, 30 years ago this past November. Once it became clear there was going to be no early resolution, they kept the show anyway and started covering other news topics. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Television transmitters were on the World Trade Center, so NYC viewers without cable saw screens go blank. [2] The exceptions were CBS and Telemundo which continued to be seen on non-cable sets because they had transmitters elsewhere. Pepso2 (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eerily, WPIX, a local channel in New York that is seen on cable systems around much of the country, lost its transmitter, too. But satellite and cable systems have a device that prevents screens from going blank; instead, they freeze on the last frame until transmission is restored. So those of us who turned to WPIX saw the frozen image of the moment of impact. — Michael J 17:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't know about the Communication during the September 11 attacks page, which covers WPIX and WCBS (but not Telemundo). Pepso2 (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poor retconning in Star Wars

Didn't George Lucas realize how poor of a retcon it would generate to have massive droid armies in the 3 prequals, yet human stormtroopers as the predominant Empire forces in the originals, which exists subsequent to the prequals in internal chronology? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 17:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That whole situation is a sore subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(EC):I once read this webpage that was dedicated to the eternal question: why are Klingons only poorly dressed Mexican-looking guys in the original Star Trek and have the elaborate face ridges in the following parts of the series? It listed a couple theories like failed genetic experiments, the jannisary theory and such (this was written before the whole thing was retconned in Enterprise), and the final theory was: "Imagine this: the whole story is realy just a TV show aired somewhere, and the different storylines were filmed at different times, with different budgets and different technologies available."

What I'm trying to say is, the whole story arc was not made up in one go, and what was impossible back when the original three parts were filmed is possible now. I suppose Lucas just didn't want to limit himself in the newer three films by being backwards-compatible.

Also, I'm sure if you look around the Internet, you'll find a bunch of elaborate theories that make up for the discrepancy. Never underestimate fandom :) TomorrowTime (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think about it too much, you could see this apparent nitpicking as veiled criticism of the stories' many authors for failing to maintain continuity - which is exactly what DRosenbach is doing, except he's coming right out and saying it. But the elaborate theories you mention have a parallel in religion, or at least Christianity: When there are "continuity errors" in the Bible (and there are quite a few), they invent elaborate theories as to why those inconsistencies exist. Except that everyone knows Star Wars and Star Trek are fictional. With religion, they're apparently serious about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously Bugs- WP:SOAP. Staecker (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elaborate theories are invented to explain both continuity mistakes in fiction, and discrepancies between parts of the Bible. That's not soapboxing, that's an observable fact. Meanwhile, I'm not sure the original question "Didn't George Lucas know...?" has been fully answered. But the series started with an outline, and there was a reference in the first film to the Clone Wars, so he clearly had something in mind there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't know. Some people do take Star Wars quite seriously, too. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To Bugs: As I said, never underestimate fandom. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]

In Dark Lord: The Rise of Darth Vader they mention something on the CloneArmy deteriorating, and something about

them ordering a new line. Great questions on continuity on Saga stories are funny because you question something, pretty valid, then they can always come out with a new book to place where your question is to explain a viable relation. And if not, hey, lets just do like Star Trek and create a warpy-wormhole into another Alternate-Reality. --i am the kwisatz haderach (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ST:TNG or maybe it was ST:DS9 made a joke out of that kind of situation when they did that nifty episode where they found themselves back in time in the Tribbles episode. One of the Earthers said to Worf, "Those are Klingons???" and Worf merely said, "We don't like to talk about it!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was certainly my favorite answer. Does anyone know what episode that was? Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trials and Tribble-ations, from DS9. — Lomn 18:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, thanks. Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Affliction is the Enterprise episode which explains it all...lamely. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As The Watchers of these Episodics, we have Grown so much, oh yes. Notice the question was in regards to Star Wars, and we then bring up Star Trek. 5 Years ago there would have been an angry post saying NO! I WAS TALKING OF STAR WARS!-NOT STAR TREK!! We lump it all together as one, we don't care. I think its time to bring up Asimov's FOUNDATION_Series, Orson Scott Card's ENDER_SERIES, and oh yes we can't forget Franky Herberts DUNE_series. Bring it baby! Bring it!! --i am the kwisatz haderach (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars and Star Trek are just easy examples because being series, they both have continuity issues. Star Trek more so, probably, due to its longevity and countless different contributors to the scripts. I'm sure there are continuity issues in many other TV and film series, never mind the countless continuity issues just within one given film. The problem is that each movie is an artificial universe. The real universe is reasonably consistent. An artificial universe is often not consistent within itself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seven part video series, explaining the whole thing. [3] Highly recommended. The Ministry (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody else has given the in-universe answer: The storm troopers are the remnants and continuation of the clone army which defeated the droid army in Episode 3. There isn't any retcon. Staecker (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the in-universe answer for why the first Death Star, which already seemed well underway at the end of 3 wasn't completed until 20 years later, whereas the second one was completed in 3 years or something and they even added a shield? Or had it actually been under constructions for about 20 years too it had just been in secret like the first? If so I guess that's why they tacked on a shield rather then fixing the fatal design flaw of the trench leading to the big hole with the critical components exposed. Nil Einne (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know- there's probably some stupid reason in some book. I'm not saying that Star Wars continuity doesn't have issues. But the OP's question isn't getting at any problem- it was explained very clearly in the films themselves. (Maybe he's using the word retcon incorrectly?) Staecker (talk) 13:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I think the RefDesk ought to actually address DRosenbach's question instead of chattering on about "Star Trek", the Bible, and so on. The "Star Wars" universe does definitely have continuity problems. However, it seems fairly clear that the droid army was not particularly effective and had various drawbacks. The intelligence level of the droids is low, they have centralized weaknesses (blow up one control ship, take out entire battalions), their manufacture is necessarily resource intensive, and so forth. They were defeated by the clone army, who formed at least the backbone of the later stormtrooper army. So it isn't necessarily a retcon. Rather it is a fictional past in which much greater faith was placed in mechanicals, "followed" (for most of us, really preceded) by a fictional present in which genetically-engineered human armies are preferred (after all, if they worked better than "old school" droid armies, why go back to using droids?). Someone mentioned the "Dune" series above in passing, but Frank Herbert's idea of the "Butlerian Jihad", a human rejection of "thinking machines", plus the Laws of Robotics of Isaac Asimov, have actually been very influential concepts on later science fiction, and there's no reason to think that such influence would not have manifested itself in some way or another in as eclectic and absorptive a body of work as the "Star Wars" series. The tension between the cold, rigid and mechanical vs. the open, adaptive and human is a frequent motif in the saga, running throughout all six films and much of the tie-in media, from Anakin/Vader's and Luke's artificial hands to Jedi disgust with blasters as "uncivilized" and so forth, to more subtle points like whether or not droids treated with love and respect take on human qualities in ways deeper than mimicry, or whether becoming mostly a droid oneself is necessarily damning and dehumanizing. And what of the dehumanization of biological soldiers by putting them in faceless masks and giving them numbers instead of names? I agree with previous commentators above that Lucas cannot possibly have planned everything out, and the space opera as a whole was an evolving, multi-creator work. I and probably many others always imagined the Clone Wars as being wars fought between groups of clones. But having it be clones vs. droids works out well, I think, if you look at the themes Lucas (and Kasdan, etc.) were working with consistently from A New Hope onward. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 14:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Ross - British television presenter

Was he sacked or renewal of his contract declined, or did he genuinely decide to leave? Personally I think stars of any kind are a waste of money, there is an oversupply of people who can do a good job at a normal salary. 78.151.131.82 (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article says: "It is thought that Ross had become frustrated by the lack of progress on his new BBC contract and exasperated by constant press speculation about his future with the corporation." He "genuinely decided to leave" apparently, for whatever reason. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dead prez lyrics

In the song “Politrikks”, dead prez raps,

and if Obama win, he wouldn't be the first black,
take your 2 dollar bill and turn it over to the back (you see? right there)”

what do they mean? I tried looking at the article, United States two-dollar bill, but I can't find any mention of a black person on it. I'm I missing some American figure of speak, unknown to us here on the other side of the Atlantic. The Ministry (talk) 22:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reverse of a United States two-dollar bill is the painting Declaration of Independence by John Trumbull. If you read the article on the painting, every figure is identified. Presumably, one of them may have been part black, or at least rumored to be so. There are only two actual Presidents in that painting, being John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, and as far as I know, neither was rumored to have any black ancestry at all, though Jefferson was known to have fathered children via his slaves. I suppose you could pick through each of them and check the ancestry of each of them. Dead Prez is apparently being oblique on purpose; he wants you to do the research and figure it out. --Jayron32 03:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scanning the list, it appears one of the figures is George Clinton (vice president), which Dead Prez may be (on purpose) confusing with George Clinton (musician)... Probably not, but imagine the SECOND George Clinton as a Vice President. I think marijauna legalization would happen rather quickly if that were the case... --Jayron32 03:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As nearly always, a simple internet search is your friend. I'm guessing they're referring a myth described here [4], [5] and John Hanson. In case you're wondering the 4th Google link which is the first ref I provided was of interest and although I didn't actually bother to listen to it at first the first related video is the second ref which although it's a bit shit sound gave me enough to realise it was probably right and I then looked at the wikipedia article which has info and realised the first ref was describing the same thing albeit seemingly seriosuly so it all ties in. You don't have to use Google either. E.g. Bing gives [6] which mentions it in the comments and links to the wikipedia article. Sadly I did this after I opened every single person on that article (so you're going to have to put up with this information dump), and found nothing of use except that one became an abolinist and released all his slaves although his nephew/heir then murdered him (by accident) while trying to kill the released slaves, another believed being black was a disease, this guy who I think is fairly famous so perhaps most Americans already know this was opposed to slavery but also evidentally opposed a bill emancipating slaves and opposed them being soldiers, whereas this one who is definitely famous was opposed to intermarriage, and also thought them inferior in body and mind although and did and thought a bunch of other stuff which I guess most Americans already know, and finally this fellow had a major influence in a document which expanded franchies to all taxpayers except women and blacks. Oh and two of them had some involvement with some ship called The Black Something or something of that sort. Nil Einne (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except, John Hanson isn't on the back of the two dollar bill. He was the first President of the Continental Congress, but he does not appear in either version of Trumbull's painting. I don't doubt your links, but something doesn't look right. May be someone else... --Jayron32 18:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes I noticed that (as I mentioned, I opened every single person in the article :-P, and obviously didn't come across John Hanson). I believe the idea is they commonly mistake someone in the bill for John Hanson. Remember we're talking about people who can be fooled into thinking a photograph of some Liberian senator is a photograph of someone who died in the 18th century so critical thinking isn't exactly a skill of theirs (just to be clear, I'm not referring to Dead Prez themselves, as with many rap groups it's not clear to me they actually believe the stuff they rap). I thought at first from briefly glancing at the debunking video that this was John Hancock, who was I believe the President at the signing of the declaration and is in the bill but I don't think that's the case, he doesn't look particularly black in either the bill or the picture although some people may believe Hanson was the President at the time rather then Hancock. Based on the conclusion which has him circled and this Snopes forum discussion, I now believe there's someone else on the bill, who can look black if you're really looking for it because of the shading of the bill. He doesn't look particularly black on the picture however and our bill image isn't great resolution although from a rough look at the location (in the conclusion video for example, and also in the end of the earlier video I think) I can see someone who they may be referring to. I'm guessing this is the person APL mentions below. The 2 debunking videos probably provide a lot of useful info and I think discuss why he can look black in the bill, but as I mentioned above the audio is way too soft so you an annoying hiss if you just make it louder normally so I didn't bother to listen to it all and it's rather long anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 09:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some more (all text this time) links [7] [8] [9]. Some of the comments in the videos are also revealing. So yeah, the guy they think is black and John Hanson is Robert Morris. They also seem to think he was the President of the Continential Congress at the time although why he was in such an unprominent position in that case I don't know. Some also seem to acknowledge that the guy in the original painting isn't black, why they think the guy in the $2 bill is black if the one in the original painting that the image for the bill was taken from isn't, again I don't know (someone in the US treasury trying to spread the truth?). Some even seem to think the $2 bill is being supressed because of this (um just make a new bill?) or that info on the contential congress presidents is being suppressed (of course we have an article, which they don't tend to like since it tells the truth). I'm sure some people are just pretending to believe this crap, but for the rest, well as I said conspiracy theorists are never masters or critical thinking. Heck they aren't even students :-P P.S. Seems Robert Morris was one of the ones involved in The Black Prince. Sadly it seems the other one William Whipple was just vandalism so I've reverted it. So at least something good came from this silly myth. Also I realised that I missed Benjamin Franklin above who was of course another abolotionist, as I didn't open him guessing correctly it wasn't him. Nil Einne (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : On the back of the bill the crosshatching makes Robbert Morris look rather dark skinned, but he's never been president. APL (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simpsons quote

Thank you, refdeskers, for your 100% streak on identifying my half-remembered quotes and songs.

I have another one -- I think it was Martin Prince. He's speaking in a low voice and maybe alludes to being fed some kind of hormones and all he wants to do is punch people now. How far off am I? 198.161.238.18 (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Francine, or Nelson, from Bye Bye Nerdie? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great thought, but I'm pretty sure not what I was "remembering". 198.161.238.18 (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure it is from "Brother's Little Helper", the kids are all in the playground talking about the drugs they have to take and Martin mentions the hormones he needs; it's certainly a Martin quote. Gran² 16:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are! The scene is listed in an episode summary but not the exact wording. Thank you! 198.161.238.18 (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I take hormones to lower my voice. Now all I wanna do is fight. [Ralph walks by] What are you looking at?" You're wrong in that his voice isn't particularly low, maybe a little bit lower than usual. decltype (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Takk :) 198.161.238.18 (talk) 17:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]