Welcome to the entertainment section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/E

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

January 15

Sarah McCullough

Hi, Who is Sarah McCullough in the real? I only know that she voice Musa & Stormy in winx! not more!!--Maxie1hoi (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winx Club is the relevant article. However, our listing of Ms McCullough among the cast isn't properly referenced, she doesn't have an IMDb entry, and a Google search doesn't give us any links. It's not an uncommon name, but (apparently) there's never been a "Sarah McCullough" who was a professional voice artist. Tevildo (talk) 19:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 16

Retroactive disqualification in sports?

In the film National Velvet, the main character, Velvet, participated in the Grand National disguised as a male, but just as her horse was about to win the race, she fell off her horse, which by itself was sufficient grounds for disqualification, but her disqualification was further cemented by the doctor uncovering her true gender. My guess is that in a situation like this, even if Velvet didn't fall off her horse and had not been disqualified on the spot, she would still be "retroactively disqualified" as soon as her true gender/identity became known, even if that takes place after the event was over. Am I right? 155.229.41.46 (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the original story she wins the race and falls right after the winning pole. Akseli9 (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your question is about a specific event in a specific sport in a specific country, but the header sort of suggests you're interested in the question of retrospective disqualification in sports much more generally. Can you confirm that? If so, there'd be a huge amount of very diverse information, and you'd need to consider each sport separately, each jurisdiction separately, and even differentiate one time period from another, because rules have a habit of changing. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your example qualifies as "retroactive", because she was female at the time of the race, regardless of when this was discovered. Now if a male won the race and later had a sex change, and that disqualified them, then that would be a retroactive disqualification. StuRat (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Stu has a point, but at the same time it's convenient to be able to distinguish this case from the one where her ineligibility is discovered before the race starts and she is prevented from entering.

Anyway, whatever we call it, there have been many cases in athletics where a contestant was discovered, after the event, to have been ineligible and the official results were changed—what the original poster calls a retroactive disqualification. One notorious example from the early days of the Olympics was the disqualification of Jim Thorpe for not being purely an amateur athlete as the rules then required. (What makes it notorious is that there were official procedures providing a time limit for this sort of disqualification, and they were not followed; also that many other athletes weren't any more pure amateurs than Thorpe was, but got away with it. Thorpe got a posthumous apology but the original pre-disqualification results were never restored.) When it happens nowadays it is typically because of illegal performance-enhancing drugs, as in the case of Lance Armstrong, or some other form of cheating. --76.69.45.64 (talk) 07:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another example is Erik Schinegger, the world champion women's downhill skier in 1966, who was raised as a girl and sincerely thought he was a girl named Erika. (She) He was disqualified and (her) his opponent is now the official 1966 champion. Akseli9 (talk) 08:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another example is college teams which are later shown to have violated NCAA rules and all their wins during that time are declared "vacated". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this just called "disqualification"? I don't think there is a special term to mean "disqualified for taking part when they weren't allowed to". Iapetus (talk) 18:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you could distinguish

You break the rules in the middle of the competition and (voluntarily or under instruction from the officials) you leave the arena before completing your playing time
You complete your playing time but are disqualified while other competitors are still playing (e.g. a golfer signs the wrong score card)
You are disqualified after all play has finished but before the prizes have been awarded (e.g. Canada stepped outside the lane in the 2015 PAG 4 x 100 m relay)
You are disqualified after the prizes are awarded but before the full competition process is concluded (e.g. Ben Johnson losing the 1988 Olympic 100m days later)
You are disqualified after the full competition process is concluded (e.g. Ben Johnson losing the 1987 WC 100m years later)

Which of #2–#5 counts as "retroactive" is a matter of opinion. jnestorius^(talk) 15:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Another point of variance: sometimes the runner-up replaces the disqualified winner, sometimes not, even in the same event: e.g. Juventus FC lost the 2005 and 2006 titles after Calciopoli; the 2006 title was awarded to AC Milan but the 2005 title was vacant. Similarly, Lance Armstrong's stripped Tour de France titles were not reassigned, but the 2010 Tour de France was reassigned to Andy Schleck in 2012. jnestorius^(talk) 15:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In MMA, if the cheater/victim of circumstance wins before the truth comes out, it wouldn't be fair to pretend they lost and the loser won, so instead of a disqualification, it goes down as a no contest. No wins, no losses, just scrubbed clean. Doesn't really work for games with more than two sides, though. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:10, January 22, 2016 (UTC)

January 17

Melise de Winter

Hi, I like to start a new articel named "Melise de Winter". Melise is a Dutch vocie actress and actress who has voiced Mandy in totally spies etc.. my refrence are: Linkedin profile (where she mention it for which studio she recording that cartoon). and her website personal! There u can hear vocie over reel demo's and other characters!--Maxie1hoi (talk) 10:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for recent fantasy action movie

I'm looking for a recent fantasy action movie released sometime between 2014-17 of which I saw the trailer a few weeks ago. It looked a lot like 300 (2007), Immortals (2011), and Wrath of the Titans (2012) and was also based on either Greco-Roman or Egyptian mythology. It could be that it was a Sony Entertainments release, but I'm not sure. From the trailer, I vividly remember a scene where a deity was rapidly approaching two mortals by flight, and when one mortal asks the other why he is running away, he's answered something like, "It's always been wise for us mortals not to meddle in the affairs of the immortals!" --2003:71:4E6A:C933:D185:4265:A8A5:D9D6 (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gods of Egypt (film)? Staecker (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the one! Thank you! :) --2003:71:4E6A:C933:D185:4265:A8A5:D9D6 (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The cabin in the woods" original language

I'm watching the film "The cabin in the woods." The actors' voices all seem to be dubbed into English, although I see nothing about it having been filmed in some non-English speaking country. It does not look like just some slight lack of synchronism of sound and picture. Actors are from the US, Australia and New Zealand. Could it be like the "Lone Ranger" film where star Klinton Spilsbury's voice was overdubbed with a more impressive voice? Edison (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked my DVD copy, and the voices sync perfectly (no sign of even ADR). -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 19:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm watching on the SyFy channel. and it looks like they have "cleaned up" some of the language to remove obscenities or references to sex. They might have overdubbed some scenes for broadcast. Edison (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SyFy is a basic cable (non-premium) station, yes? They likely are doing just as you say. When I had cable, this always bothered me about James Bond movies that were shown on TBS. Always made me wonder what else they cut out. Dismas|^(talk) 22:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 18

Star Wars characters

After seeing Star Wars: The Force Awakens two times, I still think I saw the credits list and found many characters who must have appeared in the film at some point, but I can't for the life of me remember hearing their names mentioned in the entire film. I'm fairly sure this has happened previously during the other six films too. How am I supposed to know which character a name refers to if I haven't actually heard the name during the entire film? Is this for die-hard Star Wars fanboys/fangirls only? JIP | Talk 21:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an answer for the reasoning behind naming characters that aren't referred to by name in the body of the film but you may be able to find info on those characters at Wookiepedia, the Star Wars wiki. Dismas|^(talk) 21:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your question sounds vaguely accusatory. What else would you have them do? Would you prefer it if the credits said that John Doe played "That dude with six eyes in the bar scene, just before the explosion"? And, yes, it's happened in all six films (the Ewoks are never referred to as such in RotJ) and in fact many other movies. Matt Deres (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree it sounds accusatory. But still, how am I supposed to know which character someone was if I have never heard him/her being called that? Do I have to go to Wookieepedia or some other fansite after the film? JIP | Talk 21:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the original trilogy, was Boba Fett ever referred to by name? I don't recall hearing it on-screen. Yet somehow everyone in the fan base knew who he was. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Empire Strikes Back, I'm pretty sure Vader uses his name when he tells him "No disintegrations..." I could be mistaken. However, in Return of the Jedi, Han, while blind, definitely says "Boba Fett, Boba Fett, Where?" immediately before bumping into his jet pack and sending him into the Sarlaac. It should be noted, however, that many minor and background Star Wars characters were only named in either the credits, or on the action figure packaging (in the original trilogy, the Kenner action figures, other manufacturers for more recent characters). Some Star Wars names were developed in the novelizations or Star Wars expanded universe. Notably, the name of the Galactic Capital Planet, Coruscant, was first named in the works of Timothy Zahn, it only became official with its inclusion in the prequel trilogy. --Jayron 32 03:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a general problem in movie credits, in no way limited to the Star Wars franchise. Some do actually give a brief description in the credits. In the case above, "6-eyed bar patron" might work. In other films, they put them all in one category, but don't attempt to distinguish the individuals. So, a group might be listed as "Bar patrons" or as being in the "Bar scene". Many other flicks don't attempt to identify the minor players at all, and sometimes not even the stars. They just list all the names and let you figure it out yourself.

My favorite identification method is when they show the person and list their name. There was an Outer Limits episode starring Michael Constantine that did an excellent job that way (episode 46 "Counterweight", 1964 [1]). But doing that for every actor in a movie makes the credits quite long. StuRat (talk) 22:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I remember seeing some films (possibly Airplane and/or Naked Gun, or a something similar) where very minor characters who were only in a scene for a few seconds and only spoke a single brief exclamation were referenced in the credits by the line they spoke (e.g. "Look out!": John Doe) Iapetus (talk) 14:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I am pretty sure that Boba Fett was referred to by his name at the end of Empire Strikes Back as he takes off with Han's carbonite encased body. His name is definitely heard in Return of the Jedi during the fight at the sand cruiser as Han (whose sight is still recovering) shouts it out more than once as he is hanging from the hovering craft. As to names in the credits there are times where you will see "Soldier #2" or "Cop #3" but they can also have been given names in the script that were never used on-screen. Furthermore I think there are union rules that an actor gets a credit even if their scenes were cut before the final release of the film. I had always wondered why their were credits for Ming the Mercilous and Flash Gordon in A Christmas Story - it wasn't until the DVD came out that it was explained that they had filmed one more Ralphie dream sequence that was dropped before the film was shown in theaters. I'm sure others will have the particulars on this. MarnetteD|Talk 22:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This business of several minutes of credits is fairly recent. In the golden age, they would typically have just one or two screens at the end, summarizing the key roles and the actors (the actors having been named in the opening credits, along with key production figures like the writer and director.) And there could still be mysteries. In The Wizard of Oz, the final credits listed a character named "Nikko". Huh? Maybe if one has read the books, one would know. I thought maybe Nikko was the head man among the guards. Nope. It was the guy in the monkey suit hanging around with the witch - and he didn't even have any lines! (Unless you count monkey noises as lines.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't know who Bossk is, how will you buy the Bossk toy? I may be a cynic, but they made a Nute Gunray action figure. And a Watto (with datapad) action figure. And an Elan Sleazebaggano action figure. You won't want to buy an Elan Sleazebaggano toy - you want to go home and rethink your life. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 22:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re pictures of cast members appearing, there's a lovely story about this regarding Cagney and Lacey and the actor Sidney Clute. The actor died during the filming of season 5, but his face and name continued to be shown in the credits until the end of season 7. --212.44.14.197 (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A live fish, an ax, or a handful of loose seeds

On the recent The Big Fat Quiz of the Year, there was a question of what those three things had in common: a live fish, an ax, or a handful of loose seeds. The answer was that you wouldn't have to pay the 5p bag tax. I can work out the fish (needs water which requires a bag) and the seeds (they're small loose items) but why does buying an ax require a bag? Dismas|^(talk) 21:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only possible reason I can think of is that an ax can be used as a weapon, and some countries have laws forbidding carrying weapons out in the open. JIP | Talk 21:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In England, the exceptions are for things that cannot safely or reasonably be carried by hand (down the street, or on the bus home, for example). In this case the wording is "unwrapped blades, including axes, knives, and knife and razor blades". That said, knives, knife blades, and axes are usually sold at retail with a sheath or stopper over the blade, so I don't think they would really qualify as "unwrapped". -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 22:03, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses. I know I posted in a rush but didn't realize I was posting this at the Ent. desk until I couldn't find it on Misc. or Hum. Dismas|^(talk) 13:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to come to this a bit late. When I was a lad in the Scouts, we were firmly told that uncovering an axe or a sheath knife in the street was a criminal offence. My father wouldn't even carry a garden spade in the street without wrapping the blade up, because he said it was illegal. Scouts in those days (early 1970s) were allowed and even encouraged to wear a "properly secured" knife and I once, aged about 13, travelled several miles on a London bus with a cased hand-axe attached to my belt. How times have changed. As to exactly which law my elders were referring to, I have been unable to discover as it doesn't seem to be included in any of the legislation referring to offensive weapons, but I suspect that it may be one of the many obscure provisions of the Vagrancy Act 1824. Alansplodge (talk) 11:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do any studies predict Oscar winners based on winning other awards?

Have there ever been any "studies" (for lack of a better word) about the correlation between who wins an Academy Award, based on who won a similar -- though earlier -- award (e.g., the Golden Globes or whichever)? In other words, for the category of Best Actor (or Best Picture or whatever), 90% of the time will the winner of the Golden Globe later go on to win the Oscar. Stuff like that. Also, somewhat related question. In this year's race, is there a clear favorite for Best Picture? Best Actor? Best Actress? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found these articles: one and two for Golden Globes vs. Oscar winners for starters. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will check them out. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I may add a couple of links, this has percentage breakdowns for how often numerous other awards predict the Best Picture winner, while this has a few details on other awards like Best Actress. For this year, it looks like Spotlight and The Revenant have been winning most of the major awards to this point, and Leonardo DiCaprio and Brie Larson have taken down the big Best Actor and Best Actress prizes respectively. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

January 19

Do you have to purchase a ticket to attend the Oscar ceremonies?

I just saw this video: [2]. It says that the price of an Oscar ticket is $750. Can that be true? People who attend have to actually pay? Does anyone know how that works? I assume nominees attend for free? And they are "allowed" a certain number of guests? So, who is paying? Regular people from the public who want to attend? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like a question just like this was asked at some point in the past. If I remember correctly, someone said that the ticket prices may be paid for by the production companies as a marketing expense and thus it compels the stars to attend if they otherwise wouldn't. But don't take my word for it, check the archives... And also, if you want to see the Oscars in person, think about becoming a seat filler (Yes, it's a real thing but the article needs some work). Dismas|^(talk) 22:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Or consider boycotting it due to the lack of diversity from the nomination process.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The question seemed familiar to me as well Dismas. So a little digging in the dusty archives brought up this thread from 11 months ago Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2015 February 19#Can people purchase tickets to attend the Academy Awards .28Oscars.29 ceremony.3F. MarnetteD|Talk 23:41, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MarnetteD. It's interesting that Joseph A. Spadaro didn't remember his own question. Dismas|^(talk) 00:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That was my question? Wow. Short attention span here, I guess? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And, in looking back at that old thread, it seems like the main question was never really answered. The discussion simply went off on a few tangents. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to this article from the New York Post (2/18/2015), there is a charge for tickets, which typically is paid by the studio: "Unless you are an Academy member or close to one, you have almost no shot at purchasing a seat. Each of the studios gets an allocation of tickets for the awards show held at the Dolby Theatre — which seats 3,400 people. The studios still have to pay for the tickets, however, and insiders say the prices went up for the first time in years. The best seats — orchestra, parterre and Mezzanine 1 — sell for $750 a pop. Mezzanine 2 spots cost $375. The nosebleed seats on the top level go for $150." John M Baker (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

January 20

Sextuple time must not be confused with compound duple time

This is a message at the Sextuple time article. I always though they were the same thing at different tempos. Anything contrary to this piece of information that shows that they're different in any way besides tempo?? Georgia guy (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a difference in things like beat stress (secondary stresses and the like). You could count 6 beats per measure as 1 2 3 4 5 6 or as 1 2 3 4 5 6 or as 1 2 3 4 5 6; while each may be written as a 6/8 time signature, whether one is considering the piece as sextuple time or as compound time would of course depend on the "feel" and "swing" of the piece. --Jayron 32 16:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

6/8 is usually a duple meter. At the speed of an average Mozart 6/8 rondo finale, you cannot really feel it as 6 beats, but rather as 1-and-a-2-and-a. The sextuple interpretation will require some explanation, like a marking "in six", or if there is a constant quarter-note pulse. They are not the same thing: one has two beats (and would be more clearly written as 2/[dotted quarter]) while the other has six.

Furthermore, I would expect that 1 2 3 4 5 6 would be more likely to be written as 3/2 instead of 6/4, even if there is a constant quarter-note pulse, so that it will not be misinterpreted as the more common 1 2 3 4 5 6. An example is in Musorgsky's Trepak from Songs and Dances of Death, shifting between 4/4 and 3/2 (nevertheless with six obvious beats to the bar). Double sharp (talk) 06:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of cartoons that came out in the 80s-90s (from 1985-2000) in Cartoon Network

Can someone help me with the entitled information please? Regards. -- Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean only cartoons that played on Cartoon Network, rather than all possible cartoons for that time period? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They're in here, but they're mixed with the post-Y2K garbage. Not much going on before 1992. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:14, January 21, 2016 (UTC)

Ahem. Samurai_Jack. Either you forgot when it came out or your taste is less good than I thought ;) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it. I'll watch since you mentioned. I told my guy to download everything from youtube now. Its legal at least... -- Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of it either. I lived in a whole other world then. I only "borrowed" DirectTV from about 2006-09. Sounds good, though, I'll take a look. Thanks! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:15, January 22, 2016 (UTC)

Hey, (InedibleHulk—Russell.mo) Maybe it's not you're cup of tea, but Samurai Jack has great style and action, as well as a certain dreamy/trippy sensibility. You might also like Star_Wars:_Clone_Wars_(2003_TV_series), which has some of the same aesthetic and creative people involved. The whole run of shorts is on youtube here [3], and works pretty well as a ~2 hour movie. Very little dialogue (so perhaps easier for Russell.mo), and much better than the Star Wars I-III movies :) Let me know if you like them! SemanticMantis (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hate Star Wars. Special Effect/Imagination of graphical outlook is pathetic. -- Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that cartoon isn't for you then :) But since it's animated it doesn't have the same special effects problems that the movies do. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll watch it, because you stated.

-- Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also pass on anything Star Wars. That's not to say it's not the best franchise in the world, objectively speaking. Just not for me. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:49, January 22, 2016 (UTC)

A good chunk of those were billed as Cartoon_Cartoons, and that article has a nice wikified list. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you can call it as the cartoons that played in that time period, because some things dates are not matching in what Hulky stated, but most of the info that I require to know, are there... -- Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

InedibleHulk: Thanks btw

-- Mr. Zoot Cig Bunner (talk) 19:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 21

Did people in early ancient history have any fun or laugh?

Nowadays, people laugh when they have fun. Did people in early ancient history have any fun or laugh or laugh while having fun? Or could it be that they may have had other way to express contentment? 140.254.136.149 (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How could we be know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to Diogenes Laertius, the philosopher Chrysippus died from a fit of laughter ([4], par. VII). --Wrongfilter (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny babies laugh. It's an innate human thing. Would that have manifested itself only in the past millennium? I rather think not. That's laughter.

Fun is a tougher nut to crack. It's a very personal thing, and it isn't always associated with laughter. But just google "fun in ancient times" and you'll get articles like this, about what the ancient Babylonians did for fun. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient history is all about the skeletons, and skeletons are the happiest people on earth. I don't know how many muscles you need to frown, but it's more than zero. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:02, January 22, 2016 (UTC)

Always smiling, but only laugh when something tickles their funny bones. BAHAHAHA! InedibleHulk (talk) 00:22, January 22, 2016 (UTC)

Democritus was called the laughing philosopher. Why? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:26, January 22, 2016 (UTC)

Thalia seems like a fun girl. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:28, January 22, 2016 (UTC)

Old Comedy sounds relevant. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:30, January 22, 2016 (UTC)

Here's an ancient Roman wall painting that shows the artist had a sense of humor: (NSFW): [5]. StuRat (talk) 08:10, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What humor? It seems pretty underwhelming to me, if I may use myself as a ... er, yardstick. :) -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Not even a mention of the hyena, who've done their thing for about twenty million years. Of course, serious people insist their thing is nervous laughter, not the happy kind. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:56, January 22, 2016 (UTC)

The Biblical patriarch Isaac's name means 'He laughed'; even assuming he's completely fictional, his story dates back to early in the 1st millennium BCE if not earlier. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 23

Movies about the Russian civil war

What are some examples of movies about the Russian revolution/Russian civil war which show Bolshevik atrocities against the Russian people? I know Dr. Zhivago shows some of that (along with Tsarist atrocities against the opposition) -- are there others? 2601:646:8E01:9089:85AF:C6B2:CBDD:1C9 (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]