Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 June 2

Humanities desk
< June 1	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 3 >

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.

June 2

Nobel prize

Today, can someone win 2 Nobel prizes in the same field? I know it happened before but is it still the same rule as before?65.128.168.2 (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The rules are available here:[1]. I don't see anything that would prevent a person from being nominated for awards if they already have one. Since only winners (and not nominees) are disclosed there is no way to know if a previous winner was nominated, unless they happen to win again. RudolfRed (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The section "Nobel Prize#Multiple laureates" currently says:

Four people have received two Nobel Prizes. Maria Skłodowska-Curie received the Physics Prize in 1903 for the discovery of radioactivity and the Chemistry Prize in 1911 for the isolation of pure radium, making her the only person to win a Nobel Prize in two different sciences. Linus Pauling won the 1954 Chemistry Prize for his research into the chemical bond and its application to the structure of complex substances. Pauling also won the Peace Prize in 1962 for his anti-nuclear activism, making him the only laureate of two unshared prizes. John Bardeen received the Physics Prize twice: in 1956 for the invention of the transistor and in 1972 for the theory of superconductivity. Frederick Sanger received the prize twice in Chemistry: in 1958 for determining the structure of the insulin molecule and in 1980 for inventing a method of determining base sequences in DNA.

Two organisations have received the Peace Prize multiple times. The International Committee of the Red Cross received it three times: in 1917 and 1944 for its work during the world wars; and in 1963 during the year of its centenary. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has won the Peace Prize twice for assisting refugees: in 1954 and 1981.

The rules have not been changed to prohibit this from happening again, if that is what you were wondering. Gabbe (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

So get to work! Time's a wastin'. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Marquesan chiefs

What religion, Protestantism or Catholicism, did the chiefs of the Marquesas Islands converted to? That is the chiefs of Nuku Hiva and Tahuata. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 09:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Our article on Nuku Hiva says that the population converted to Catholic Christianity, and both islands seem to have been visited mainly by French and Spanish people, which would again suggest Catholicism. Are you referring to some specific event, when you ask about the chiefs converting? 86.167.12.64 (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

modern equilvalent to 'ocean travel' type luggage (trunk)

These trunks

http://www.google.com/search?q=travel+trunk&tbm=isch

used to have a "whole appartment's" worth of appurtenances for long ocean travel, etc.

I'm wondering if there is a modern equivalent, an object that is supposed to hold everything like that? This is a question about fashion and baggage. --80.99.254.208 (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this helps but in modern times, if you're moving a whole apartment's worth of whatever over a resonable distance, it's likely to be packed in boxes and then these will be packed in a wooden crate (or a wooden crate construsted to store them in) and these will then I think be packed in a shipping container (i.e. Intermodal container) and probably sent by ship. Unless you're super rich or have so little that you choose to use air transport. Nil Einne (talk) 10:25, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Time from election to inauguration

Why is there so much time from voting day until inauguration day in the US for the president? What made me think of this was the fact that Francois Hollande only had 9 days to get used to the idea that he was France's new president. Meanwhile US presidents have nearly 2 months. Also, what is the greatest amount of time for a standard (e.g., not a recall election) election till the inauguration for a high level leader, e.g., president, chancellor, etc? And the shortest? Are there any places where voting is finalized and inauguration happens on the same day or at least within 24 hours of each other? By the way, I'm not concerned with anywhere that doesn't have free and fair elections. Thanks, Dismas|^(talk) 10:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

In general, in places with Westminster based systems, the new government and hence Prime Minister effectively take over as soon as results are known. Unless it's really close, the loser concedes within hours of the election, allowing the new mob to get started straight away. There is a formal swearing in ceremony a few days later, and I guess the most serious stuff starts then. HiLo48 (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) In Westminster parliamentary systems, if the caretaker (= incumbent) Prime Minister's party wins the election, the caretaker period simply ends when the result is beyond doubt and the government just carries on with governing, without further ado. The PM would probably take the opportunity of having a reshuffle of the Cabinet, but that can happen at any time. If the incumbent party is defeated, the winning side negotiates with the government about a practical transition timetable, but it can be as short as 1 working day's grace. That famously happened in the Australian federal election, 1972. The election was on Saturday 2 December, the Liberal-Country government of William McMahon was defeated, and the new PM, Labor's Gough Whitlam was sworn in on Tuesday 5 December. At that stage, not all of the individual seats had been decided, so the Labor caucus could not meet to elect the full ministry. But that didn't deter the notoriously single-minded Whitlam - he and and his deputy Lance Barnard were sworn in as a literally 2-man government, which ran the country until 19 December, when the full ministry was sworn in. There may be a shorter gap than 1 day, but I've not heard of it. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 10:35, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, the customary election day is Thursday. The results are counted through the night, and it's quite common for the leader of the winning party to go to 'kiss hands' at the palace some time on the Friday morning - that's the nearest we've got to inauguration. The 2010 election was unusual in that this did not happen, due to the coalition negotiations. A full set of government posts is usually announced within 48-72 hours of the winner kissing hands; it can be quicker. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It's actually around 2 weeks, not "nearly 2 months". Your probably confused the voting of the electors with the actual counting of the votes for POTUS. It's very common misconception, one held by a lot of Americans even. Here are the three key dates:

What happens	Date	Date for 2012 election	How many people participates
Voting for electors	the Tuesday after the first Monday in November	November 6, 2012	~150 million (general public)
Electors vote for President	the Monday after the second Wednesday in December	December 17, 2012	538 (electors)
Counting of the electoral votes	first day of Congress in session	January 6, 2013	535 (entire Congress)

Technically speaking the President will be decided on January 6, 2013, which is only 2 weeks away from the inauguration date. For the 2008 election it took 12 days. It all comes down to when does Congress convene after the holidays. We have an article that lays it out pretty clearly: United_States_presidential_election,_2012_timeline.Anonymous.translator (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Please remember that until 1936-37, when the Twentieth Amendment's provisions were fully in force, both Congress and the president were not sworn in until March 4. As at the time Congress met in early December for its annual session, that meant that even if one party was completely turned out of office, the old Congress and lame-duck president went through an entire session of Congress (which generally ended in a mad dash, which is why you see so many "Act of March 3, 1885" or "Act of March 4, 1893"). The present two and a half months does allow much time for the lame duck to get into mischief with long-lasting executive orders and appointments to commissions and so forth, which I would imagine we will see much of if Obama is defeated. Plus "final" agency regulations that can be very difficult for the next administration to undo, especially with friendly (to the last administration) federal judges lying in wait.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The term limits and very high level of incumbent re-election mean that you generally don't need to know the result to know whether the current president will continue in office. If it's their first time, they will. If it's their second term, they won't. That means you have a president with nothing to lose at the end of his second term, regardless of when the election happens. --Tango (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Very high level? Starting after Kennedy who was assassinated, we have Johnson, Ford, Carter and Bush as one-termers and Nixon, Reagan, W. Bush, Clinton as two-termers. Looks to be equal chances. Going back to the start of term limits only adds one one-termer, one two-termer and Kennedy. Rmhermen (talk) 12:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

A VP that became president is an incumbent, so Johnson won one incumbent election and lost one. Truman won one incumbent election and didn't stand for his second (how you count that probably depends on why he didn't stand - is there an accepted explanation? Did he not want to use the grandfather clause on the term limit amendment, or did he just think he was going to lose?). If we don't count Truman's possible second election, then we have 4 failed incumbent elections and 6 successful ones since the introduction of term limits (someone please check I can count). I'll be honest, I thought it was higher than that before I actually worked out the numbers. --Tango (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

While that is true, it is completely irrelevant. The role of the electoral college in US politics is similar to the role of the Queen in British politics - it is purely a formality (unless something goes seriously wrong). --Tango (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous.translator is essentially correct... the reason for the delay between Election Day and the Inauguration is due to the mechanics of how the President of the US is actually elected, and the historical necessity for allowing travel time between each step in the process. On election day, the voters do not actually elect the President... they elect a slate of Electors. Once the people's votes are counted and we know who the electors for each State actually are, the Electors then travel the State Capital, meet and determine who they are going to elect as President. The results are then sent to Washington, where they are counted and announced to Congress. Congress then has to contact the new President Elect, inform him that he had been elected... and allow time for him to travel back to Washington to be inaugurated.

Today, what with electronic communication, each step could probably be done in a few hours... but historically (when travel and communication moved no faster than a horse) each step in the process could take several days, if not weeks. Hence the need for several months between Election Day and the Inauguration.

As for the Electoral College being a mere formality... usually it is... but see our article on Faithless electors for how easily that could change. Blueboar (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Not just faithless electors. The 2-party system is pretty entrenched in the US, but if a third party managed to take a couple of states, it's quite possible that no party would have a majority and the third party would be in a position to decide the president in the electoral colege. 59.108.42.46 (talk) 10:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

There being enough faithless electors for it to impact the result would fall under the category of things going seriously wrong. --Tango (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Eh? Why do you need a lot of faithless electors? Surely it depends on how close the result is? Since it varies between state, with some having winner takes all and some having proportionality, and the number of electors also change, I don't know how close it can be, e.g. if it technically can be 269/269 and whether that's likely or requires an extremely usual voting pattern (e.g. Mississippi voting Democratic and DC voting Republican [2] for President) but I doubt you need that many. Remember in the recent Bush v. Gore only 3 were needed presuming no absentions. And unless you've actually done the analysis, I don't see why you're ruling out the possibility you only need 1/538 people to be a faithless elector. Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If it's mere formality I wouldn't have bothered pointing it out. Like Blueboar mentioned above, the possibility of faithless electors means that the result of the November election is nothing more than an exit poll. Nothing is certain until the first day of next year when Congress reconvenes to count the actual votes. Until all 50 states outlaw faithless electors it remains perfectly legal and can decide the entire election. Anonymous.translator (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I doubt that those laws are truly binding on the elector. The act of casting a ballot for a federal office in the manner prescribed by the federal constitution surely is exclusively a jurisdiction reserved to the federal government? What if a faithless elector in spite of local law persisted? State authorities might refuse to certify the formal notification which is sent to Washington to be counted by Congress, or if they counted the elector as voting for who he was supposed to, he might refuse to sign or Congress might refuse to count it. .--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

SCOTUS already ruled that it's under state jurisdiction: "As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a functionary of the state, not the federal government. Therefore, states have the right to govern electors." I agree with you that federal elections should be federally regulated, but the courts didn't see it that way unfortunately. Also when you consider that the winner-takes-all system is part of state laws (of 48 states), the states actually has a huge influence over the actions of its electors. Anonymous.translator (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Something being illegal doesn't mean it can't be done. The state may be able to punish the faithless elector after the fact, but can they void the vote? --Tango (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think I mentioned this before a few weeks. There are some states which have laws which claim they do, but from what I can tell, it's never been something tested in the Supreme Court. Nil Einne (talk) 08:03, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I think a US presidential election result being affected by faithless electors is about as likely as the British monarch appointing a prime minister outside of the conventional process (except in some exceptional circumstance where it is obvious that the conventional process would be inappropriate - both the British and US systems allow for a little common sense to be applied in exceptional circumstances). Both can, in theory, happen, but they are very unlikely and could only happen once - both countries would very quickly change their system if it were abused. These outdated processes are only kept because they are a formality that doesn't really matter and most people either like tradition and can't be bothered with the hassle of changing something that doesn't really matter - that, and the common sense safety valve can be quite helpful. --Tango (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think these are actually that similar. The Prime Minister has far fewer executive powers and will only survive until the first session of parliament unless a majority in parliament supports the choice. (There are other reserve powers which are potentially more significant like witholding Royal Assent and dissolving parliament.) While there are some states which attempt to stop faithless electors, many do not and as I understand it, ultimately if the results are 269/269 all you need is one faithless elector out of 538 and you get a president for 4 years with all the powers that come with it and really little ability to remove the president unless perhaps they do something warranting Impeachment. Nil Einne (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

OP here. Thanks for the responses. I did not forget about the electoral college. (insert Al Gore joke here) But I see it as little more than a formality. There's no reason why the whole process couldn't be done in less than 48 hours. It's not like the election is a surprise to anyone. The electors know they have an obligation coming, as does Congress. The point about it being more of a hassle to change a system that was put in place when horseback was the fastest mode of travel than it would be worth is a good one. And that is what I didn't take into account... The rusty wheels of change. Thanks again, Dismas|^(talk) 00:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Dismas, I think it's worth noting that, given the events of the United States presidential election, 2000, there's a definite reason the American government hasn't moved to cut that delay down to 48 hours -- the needlessly backwards voting systems employed in my country, fragmented across 51 major jurisdictions (and then still more fragmented from county to county in each state), create the need to build in ridiculous delays in order to allow for a recount. As you'll recall, the absurd amount of time between voting and electoral voting was still not sufficient for Florida to get its act together -- the recount was stopped for, of all things, lack of sufficient time to be able to finish before the electors needed to be selected. Not that some of us are bitter about it, or anything. :-) Anyway, it's not just the rusty wheels of change, in my opinion, but the need to allow for prolonged counts (and recounts) before affirming the election's results that has left us with the delay. Why there's another month plus between the electoral vote and the inauguration, though...well, I think we could save some time there. I know there are "reasons", but none that seem all that convincing to me, with the sole exception of a completely unlikely "what if it goes like United States presidential election, 1824?" scenario, in which case you have to give the House time to get its act together, and if any entity in the country is less efficient and effective than the Florida ballot-counters, it's the House of Representatives. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Why Ohnesorg protested against Reza Pahlavi's visit

What was the reason behind Benno Ohnesorg's protest against Mohammad Reza Pahlavi's visit? The article does not contain that info.--176.241.247.17 (talk) 13:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

This source [3] says his police force had a reputation for torture, especially against political dissidents, suggesting that as a reason for the protest in general. That does not give Ohnesorg's personal reasons, which don't seem to be known. 184.147.120.184 (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

why are singing roles usually tied to a voice register?

why are singing roles tied to a voice register? I mean, I understand having male and female characters, but beyond that I don't hear anything wrong with simply moving things up or down by whole octaves and letting another person sing it. Why shouldn't a soprano role EVER be filled by a talented alto, just transposed? For other instruments, it's fine to listen to something written for an instrument on the other side of the keyboard by an instrument that plays octaves away - it's the same melody, and from what I understand of music theory, the rest of the orchestra doesn't even need to adjust as long as it's whole octaves? And anyway some harmonics are in the proper octave anyway?

So, why are voice parts not transposed as a rule? To give a very specific example: why couldn't Pavarotti simply record Figaro in his own range, transposed by whole octave(s)? (He is a tenor and the role is baritone.) 84.3.160.86 (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It does happen sometimes. When I did my A level music exam, I sang "O for the wings of a dove" but transposed into my alto/tenor range (as opposed to the treble who usually sings it). In other words, I sang it an octave lower than the normal voice. I don't actually remember why now. I suspect it was because I have a weird vocal range for a woman. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah but you're not a professional and one of the best. THEY'RE the ones I want to hear singing different roles! :) (No offense). Since the result is fine - why doesn't it happen? 17:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.3.160.86 (talk)

Offence taken! How do you know I'm not a professional singer, or one of the best? Or that I wasn't at the time? Just because I never made any records doesn't mean I never made a living from my music. <flounce> --TammyMoet (talk) 08:17, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Why does a particular melody line in a particular work of music get played on a violin or a saxaphone or a cello or whatever? Because that's the effect the original writer intended. Certainly, people do rework pieces of music into different settings, but insofar as the writer of a piece of music intended for a particular line of music to be played a certain way, if the goal of the performance is to respect the work of the original writer (it needn't be, but it often is) then you maintain the original integrity of the piece. If the writer wrote it for a soprano, they intended for a soprano, and not an alto, to sing it. --Jayron32 18:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting comparison. I'm not sure, but I do think that famous violinists play sax, cello, etc pieces, same for cellists (yo yo ma) etc. they'll interpret anything (once they're famous). But not singers. --188.6.76.26 (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, it comes down to what is the intent of the performance. If you intend the performance to be an accurate representation of the writer's original work, you perform the voice parts with the correct voice types. Instead, if the purpose of the performance is to reset the original work in a new setting, then by all means, use a different voice type and different instruments. Both are valid and fine. But the original question was asking why there was a need to keep a voice part in the original voice type. The answer is you do if you wish to respect the original writer's intent. If you wish to provide an alternate interpretation, you can do that too. --Jayron32 18:26, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

You say depending on the intent both are valid and fine, but do you have any examples? --188.6.76.26 (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC) Check out the ranges of a baritone and tenor. There is not an octave difference between the middle parts of their range. Normally you transpose by about a perfect fouth. Same between alto and soprano124.150.73.159 (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The greatest classical song writer of them all, Franz Schubert, who wrote close to 700 of them, usually published his songs in 3 or 4 different versions, all in different keys, to suit different voice types, so he had no problem with the basic idea. But he probably never imagined a single person, male or female, would ever sing all of them, if only because many are clearly speaking with the the voice of a woman who's telling us about her love for a man, or vice-versa. The late Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau recorded every single last one of them, but that was for reasons of artistic integrity (namely, his apparent desire to record every piece of non-pop vocal music ever written). That said, it would be odd to hear a woman singing Dichterliebe or a man singing I Enjoy Being a Girl. The Blues Brothers tried the idea with Stand by Your Man, so you can see how the words of a song sort of matter, just as much as the music. And this really matters when it comes to opera or musicals, far more than with discrete songs; can you imagine Les Mis or La bohème sung with the tenor and soprano roles reversed? Last week, I heard a recording of a woman singing Nessun dorma. Nothing wrong with it musically, and anyone who'd never heard it before would probably think it was perfectly ok. So it certainly can be done. But it sounded weird to me. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Music that was written for castrato singers is sometimes either sung by a female soprano or transposed so that it can be sung by a tenor. Christoph Willibald Gluck re-wrote his opera Orfeo ed Euridice several times so that the role of Orfeo could be performed by a male who was intact or otherwise, or by a female. Alansplodge (talk) 23:19, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

One reason I can think of is that good orchestration likely takes into account the range of the singer. If, for example, a soprano part was composed so that it "floats above" a mass of lower pitched music, but the part is transposed down an octave it might, in some cases, result in a muddier sound. Offhand I can think of examples from opera where the singing is doubled or intermeshed with, or otherwise interestingly intertwined with instrument lines where the interplay of pitches between the voice and instruments are important (examples from Salome readily come to mind—Strauss definitely payed close attention to the pitch relations between voices and instruments, creating all kinds of amazing effects). There are many more issues if the singing is transposed by something other than an octave—then all the orchestral parts will also need to be transposed in various ways. Some instruments might be called to play notes out of their range, so then what? Further, composers/orchestrators take advantage of the way instruments sound different at different pitches. Lots of instruments have certain notes that have strong and distinct tones and other notes that tend to be weaker sounding. Good composers/orchestrators take this into account. If you start transposing everything by a fourth or whatever, you might the music overall sounds weaker. Then there's the issue of instruments being called to play notes out of their ranges. How well this all would work depends on the piece. For some it may be fine, for others the sound would suffer to one degree or another. On the other hand, if it's just a piano it should be no problem. Pfly (talk) 09:58, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Another is that voices (especially in opera) were once closely associated with dramatic characteristics. Each soprano type has its own stereotypical attributes - light lyric sopranos are young and naive, while lyric coloraturas are slightly older and more experienced, but still innocent. Mezzos are sexually mature (and often active), while contraltos are famously "witches, bitches, and britches". Tenors are heroic - and the more powerful the tenor, the more heroic - but a baritone or bass part can be anything from noble to old to comic to villainous. The composer may also choose a voice based on what he has to work with; the Queen of the Night is a lyric coloratura soprano not just because Mozart wanted to trick audiences into regarding her as heroic and innocent, but also because he wrote it to be sung by his sister-in-law, a popular lyric coloratura soprano. --NellieBly (talk) 05:40, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

who's who in australia

Unresolved

Please could you do a lookup on Calvert-Jones and tell me when they were born? Kittybrewster ☎ 18:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Kitty, you're doing it again. Your question in its present form is unanswerable because you don't give us enough information.

There are no doubt many people in Australia named Calvert-Jones, and a quick look at google confirms this. Probably the best known one is Rupert Murdoch's sister, Janet Calvert-Jones, but you don't seem to mean her because you asked about "they". Do you want the birth data for all the Calvert-Joneses who appear in Who's Who, however many that may be? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes please. John Anthony (born 1937 Aldershot married Janet) and his children David John, Penny Fowler, Mark A (married Louise who?), James Peter and Robert. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if you're interested, but John Anthony Calvert-Jones was in Higgins, Victoria in 1968 and 1972: then in 1977 and 1980 was in Kooyong, Victoria. He seems to have also been in East Yarra, Victoria in 1977 (don't know where that fits). These are electoral registers, available on Ancestry. Sorry that's all Ancestry will let me find with that exact name, and I don't have time to trawl through 8000+ entries that might match from Ancestry. Maybe you'll get a better response on one of the Rootsweb boards for Australia? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

My principle interest is in ordering their children by dob. Debretts Handbook of Australia and New Zealand, 1982, has no Calvert-Jones. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:49, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

What present-day issues would a sequel of Groundhog Day entail?

Let's say that there's ever a sequel of Groundhog Day involving a child of Phil and Rita Connors, or some derivative of this classic on film.

The progeny of the weatherman and producer from Pittsburgh gets trapped in a time-loop much like how Phil was in the first film, only this time of course, it takes place in the present-day. Phil's predicament happened 19 years and 4 months earlier.

This begs the question: How would the dynamics of the present day change what happens in the character's time-loops?

(Some examples I can provide: Internet, mobile phones and easier access to the stock market. You can describe what you would do with these three if you stayed stuck in a time-loop, and how you would use them to take advantage of your unique predicament. Likewise, you can cite other dynamics of the modern day that Phil Connors didn't get to face and how you'd deal with them.)

Incidentally, have there been any other films made since Groundhog Day, that is anything like the plot? (Not a one-time loop, but a series of constant, repeated loops like what Phil Connors had to go through.) Thanks. --76.250.250.24 (talk) 18:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The film's makers kept it simple, they used a snow storm to trap him in a single small town with no phone access. They also didn't bother trying to explain why he was in the loop, he just was. This allowed the film makers to get to what was important, the characters and the plot. A sequel, which I personally hope never occurs, could do the same, but even if he did have access to the internet, does it matter? It's not like he could get help for the sitution he was in, and his maximum conversation length is still only 24hours. Lastly, I have not heard of any movies like Groundhog Day with a repeated time loop. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 18:48, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple of versions of 12:01 PM. The short is on YouTube, if you're interested. — Kieff | Talk 19:06, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That said, if I remade it, I would add zombies, let Phil know he has 10 lives, and has to live 100 days to get out. And yes, Phil woul still have to be played by Bill Murray. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 18:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The stock market isn't going to get you anywhere - you would lose all your gains when the loop starts over, so you're in the same position as with a single instance of time travel rather than a loop (and that has been covered extensively in other fiction - normally something goes wrong to prevent the protagonist making lots of money). Since the only thing that is preserved when the loop starts over is his memory, all you can really usefully do is things that change your memory. That's what he did - he learned new things (life stories, the piano, ice sculpting, etc.). The presence of the internet may increase the number of things you could learn - you could read the whole of Wikipedia, for instance - but it doesn't change the basic concept.

I'm not aware of another film like Groundhog Day, but the idea of time loops has been covered elsewhere. For example, there is an episode of Stargate SG-1 called Window of Opportunity (it's very openly based on Groundhog Day - the film is actually referenced by one character during the episode). --Tango (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Reference Desk isn't really a discussion forum for chatting about science fiction film ideas. (Go start a thread in the XKCD chat forums, if you'd like to do that sort of thing.) If you're looking for some examples from film, television, and literature, we have an article on time loops, and TV Tropes has a substantial collection in their entry on the Groundhog Day Loop. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the movie is affected by present-day technology. A snowstorm stops you now as then; Punxatawney is presented as a slghtly backwards town and nothing that happens seems dependent on technology that's changed since then so as to materially affect things. I once bought from a place that sold such things a draft (i.e., early in the process, not filmed) script for the film that had Phil's ex-girlfriend placing a curse on him, thus causing the repeating date scenario. I guess they decided that it didn't make much sense either (odd curse to place on your ex, a STD is so much more effective) and so they left it unexplained. It would actually make one mildly off thing in the movie--Phil giving the young couple Wrestlemania tickets, where did he get them from? In Punxatawney? Now he can just print them off the internet.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

: The TV series Day Break from 2006 involved a time loop. RudolfRed (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Also see "The Mystery Spot". There must be more... Wnt (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

There's also that one-line scifi short story: "Time loop! Help! I'm trapped in a" — Kieff | Talk 20:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I also am curious: All films involving time-loops seem to have adults trapped in them. Have there ever been any that involve children dealing with the time-loops instead? I wish to study how a child would deal with that predicament differently, and whether the theory proves true that they could mature as far as the loops get them.

(Say, if a 7-year-old is stuck in 14 subjective years' worth of time-loops, will he then have the maturity of a young adult who just turned 21? Then get on the par of his grandparents if he loops through 50 years' worth of time-loops?)

Hopefully there are films that depict this, but if not, what literature would? --76.250.250.24 (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, I'm not all that up on my literature, but to your statement that "I wish to study how a child would deal..." well, the only option that comes to mind is to place a child into a simulated world and run a time loop - this would be both illegal and require yet to be created technology. Literature on the matter is really only what one person imagines, their work is probably only as true as what you yourself could imagine. I mean, there was no correct, true, outcome of the Groundhog day situation, Phil could have just as easily gone insane rather than become so cheery. Unique Ubiquitous (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

In the child's case, knowledge might increase with each loop, but maturity seems to require larger physical changes to the brain. Now, whether those would be allowed is up to the author of the story. Interestingly, if they were allowed, a brain scan might be a way to prove that the child has an adult brain, supporting his claim to be in a time loop. In both the child and adult cases, however, presumably the total brain capacity does not change, so reading all of Wikipedia wouldn't help, they would forget the Oppenheimer biography when memorizing all the Pokemon characters. StuRat (talk) 18:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

As for the effect of the Internet, he could conceivable convince the entire world he was in a time loop (or that they all were), by predicting enough sufficiently rare events for later in the day, such as a list of criminals to be apprehended that day. Once people believe him, though, you risk the paradox of them changing their behavior accordingly (if he predicts an accident, people avoid it, for example). StuRat (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It looks to me like the conversation's moved on from this part of the question, but I'll add that a recent Oscar nominee for Live Action Short, titled Time Freak, deals with a recurrent time loop in a 21st Century setting (though in this case it's a loop the character is subjecting himself to). It's probably not dealing with the loop in a cerebral enough fashion to address most of your questions, but I thought it was at least clever (if not flat-out funny) and might be worth a look. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 06:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Institute for the Revision of History

Has anyone ever heard of this organisation? According to a Liberian newspaper article ("Nazi Survivor Sues American Company". Weekend News 1981-03-14: 3.), it was an anti-Zionist and Holocaust-denying organisation in the USA that promised $50,000 to anyone who could prove that deaths at Auschwitz were intentionally caused by the German government. Aside from this dead-tree article, I can only find three pages mentioning it — www.hix.com/arch/?page=issue&issueid=53096, www.hix.com/arch/?page=issue&issueid=50594, and www.hix.com/arch/?page=issue&issueid=49503. It would seem to me that the Liberian journalists would hear about such a lawsuit only after American journalists had reported on it. Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you mean Institute for Historical Review. The article mentions the reward and an accompying lawsuit. RudolfRed (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I've never heard of this case before (or of the IHR), so I wondered if there were some sort of error, but I couldn't figure out what it was. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was going to say that it's doubtful anyone would so name their organization, that sounds more like what a critic might call it. Can we mark this Q resolved ? StuRat (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

The name in particular surprised me, but that was the name that appeared in Weekend News. Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the Australian National University's School of Inconsequential Studies is alive and kicking. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 19:16, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Is that the real name or a nickname made up by a couple of the people who commented? Nyttend (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It was a fictional institution imagined up by Ian Warden, a journalist for The Canberra Times. He kept me mightily amused for the more than 25 years I spent in that city, and he often referred to it in his scribblings. All I can say, Oscar-like, is that if it doesn't exist, then it should. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 01:35, 7 June 2012 (UTC)