Humanities desk
< March 19	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 21 >

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.

March 20[edit]

The reference desk takes Manhattan[edit]

Whenever anybody does anything at all in Manhattan, the headline is always "so-and-so takes Manhattan". What's the origin of this phrase? --Nicknack009 (talk) 11:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The ovious reference is to First We Take Manhattan. I don't know if there's an earlier meme Cohen was referencing. Algebraist 13:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly goes back much farther than that (1987). There's a 1925 Rogers and Hart song commonly called "I'll Take Manhattan" [1]. Could that be the source ? StuRat (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to that link, that wasn't the original title (it doesn't say when it become the commonly used title) and the lyrics don't include the phrase "take Manhattan", so I'm not convinced. --Tango (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Muppets Take Manhattan? Duomillia (talk) 14:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At 1984 that's the earliest conclusive usage yet, and I'd say it's more obvious that Algebraist's guess (which I'd never heard of!). --Tango (talk) 15:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'd never heard of the Muppets version. So it goes. It's the earliest we've got, but it seems very likely that it's referencing something earlier, such as StuRat's suggestion. Algebraist 15:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a song from 1925 that is often, but erroneously, called "I'll Take Manhattan" (link). Alternative lyrics (here) which actually include the line, "I'll take Manhattan, the Bronx and Staten Island, too." Incidentally, this was one of the answers on Johnny Carson's old Carnac the Magnificent bit. The question was "What are Dave Winfield's current contract demands?" ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 15:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat already suggested that one and gave the exact same link! Can you date the alternative lyrics? The original doesn't mention taking Manhattan at all, so almost certainly isn't the origin of the meme, is the alternative from the same time? --Tango (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think there's something in the phrase that suggests that making it in New York City is harder than other places. So, if you, as an artist, for example, succeed in New York City, it's a particular achievement. I'd compare it to phrases such as Big in Japan (though that, from the link, appears to have the opposite connotation). No idea when the phrase was first used, sorry. Jørgen (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could be thinking of Theme from New York, New York. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) All glory to StuRat, then! I can't give you a date, but the alternative version is probably most associated with Frank Sinatra and was pretty popular back in the day. The link is to a website called Spirit of Sinatra. I'd bet the "... takes Manhattan" snowclone could be traced to the Sinatra version of the song. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 19:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure the song must be the origin but with the original have, meaning choose, being replaced with take at some time, possibly very early on. Perhaps with the idea of taking by storm or a more hostile takeover, here is a 1967 reference the earliest I have found [2] meltBanana 19:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest explicit link between the song and the snowclone that I could find is Jake Takes Manhattan, a 1976 album by jazz drummer Jake Hanna. The first track on the album is the Rogers and Hart song. —Kevin Myers 04:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a lot of references in Google News archive to "take Manhattan" as referring to "take Manhattan Bridge", if that was a common enough phrase, it could have influenced the change to the lyric. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMDb has a 1967 TV pilot We'll Take Manhattan [3]. Plot: "An inexperienced lawyer attempts to help a 140 year-old Native American and his tribe regain their property in downtown Manhattan." --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

community development[edit]

I there organizations or individuals or links that offer free community development degree? I n other word how can i be helped if i want to study this faculty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arrows45 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Degree courses are very rarely free, and those that are free are not worth having. In some countries you might be able to find some sort of sponsorship or scholarship, from a government or some other organization. Start with colleges in your local area. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Some free courses are worth having. It depends on your geographical location. Probably not much help for the original poster though - other than as a lesson to specify one's geographical location in questions) Jørgen (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this is likely to help the original poster, but a little correction on DJ Clayworth's answer: in numerous countries, you can absolutely get a degree worth having for essentially free. Here in Finland, for example, a degree from the University of Helsinki will cost you some administrative fees, which probably isn't even a three-digit figure per school year, and of course you may need to buy some books -- if you can't get them from the library. The same goes for most schools, pretty much, regardless of whether you want to become a doctor or a plumber. There are some private establishments, of course, which are more expensive, but they are definitely the exception. Of course, we pay for it in taxes, and you're still going to have to take care of your upkeep during your studies (though the guv'mint does provide student benefits, such as rent support). I believe at least Sweden has an essentially identical system. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; even in the UK bursaries are provided for socially-important qualifications that are currently undersubscribed like teacher training (PGCE), so you are effectively paid (a small sum) to study.[4] Per the original question, Arrows really needs to indicate where in the world he/she is. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Small claims need for summons[edit]

I have a small claims court case approaching, trying to get money out of a client who wouldn't pay for design work that was deliver, accepted, and used as mass marketing.

During the process, we called upon two ad industry people, asking for advice on a technical matter. Their procedural advice was simply "try this, but otherwise, that's a hard situation to fix". They've stated in a letter that we contacted them, they tried to help, but really couldn't, because the procedure was hard.

My lawyer is saying that we should have them in court, as witnesses, and if they don't want to come voluntarily, issue a summons. Is it of any benefit what-so-ever for them to appear in court, when they didn't really have any impact on the case? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.114.20 (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like a request for legal advice, which we do not provide here at the RefDesk. Please seek the advice of your lawyer. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, my lawyer is who I'm trying to disprove.

Is there anywhere else on the internet that I can take this question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.114.20 (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there is anywhere else you should take this question. You are asking for legal advice, and the best source for that is a lawyer. If you disagree with your current lawyer, you should get an opinion from another lawyer. That won't be free, but the best advice rarely is. - Eron^Talk 16:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google "Wank Solicitors".--88.109.127.55 (talk) 07:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your lawyer says to do it, I suggest you do it - you hired a lawyer because he knows more about how to win court cases than you do. If you doubt your lawyer, you need to get another lawyer. Asking random people on the internet won't help. --Tango (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your current lawyer may be of poor quality, but I can just about guarantee that he has more training on the matter and is more likely to know what he is talking about then most of us. Even if we were allowed to give legal advice that is. 65.167.146.130 (talk) 19:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unhappy about your current lawyer, you should either approach a different lawyer for a second opinion, or approach the local legal professional regulatory authority.

We say we don't give out legal advice, and litigation strategy is probably the last thing you want random know-it-alls from the internet giving you advice on. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say, we called upon two ad industry people, asking for advice on a technical matter. Was that the extent of their involvement -- being asked for advice? Did they have any knowledge that there was a contractual obligation between the design company and the buyer? Questions, not advice . . . DOR (HK) (talk) 03:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ship question[edit]

How many ships were there in the Royal Navy on the eve of WWI? --140.232.10.139 (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a rather vague question. All ships, including auxiliaries and liners that could be taken over and converted to troopships? Just fighting ships? Just capital ships?

If it's any help, our Grand Fleet article gives a number of ~150 ships for just that detachment (although this was most of the strength of the Royal Navy). —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 18:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what parts of American life do antisemites claim Jews control?[edit]

I am phrasing my question very narrowly and so hope that no one considers that these are my opinions or in any way fuel antisemtisim. However, I have been unable to find answers in reading our articles on antisemitism. My question is, according to antisemitic claims, what parts of American life do Jews control? I'm thinking: financial systems (banks, stock and bonds markets), higher education (college and university), the system of laws (legislatures, courts), health and medicine (doctors, etc), research/engineering/sciences, literature and publishing, etc. I'm not sure if some or all of these are claimed to be in Jewish hands by antisemtics. Where can I read about what parts of American life/institutions/etc are claimed by antisemites to be in Jewish hands. Thanks!

OR, but, I would say the most prevalent accusations are that Jews control the media (both news and entertainment) and the financial sector. Tomdobb (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what part of entertainment (according to the claims), hollywood, or music or radio or all of the above or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.85.244 (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

google sets for finance, media has a long list, any else of these claimed to be (by antisemties) under jewish control?79.122.85.244 (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finance has always been the big one historically - and with good reason, lots of Jews were (perhaps still are?) very successful bankers. --Tango (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Growing up in an extremely racist area (see "Tiny Town" lyrics by the Dead Milkmen), a common claim was that the Jews controlled the black population. Therefore, hating blacks was not anything against blacks, it was an extension of anti-Semitism. -- kainaw ™ 20:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what what what?? antisemites claim Jews control the BLACKS?? That's what, 15% of the population outright, isn't it... do the claims say jews control any other groups outright (hispanics, italians, etc)? Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.122.85.244 (talk) 20:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that over time some idiot has claimed that Jews control other races. If you want to see more about some sort of "secret relationship" between Jews and blacks (and, hopefully, you have enough education to survive the nonsense), see http://www.blacksandjews.com -- kainaw ™ 20:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget ZOG. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Niall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money discusses how the rise of the Rothschilds in the 16th/17th century helped "reinforce" the already widespread belief that Jews controlled finance. This belief is allegedly based in the establishment of Jewish banking (merchant banking and/or exchange banking) in Italy during the 14th century. At the time, usury laws prevented Christians from charging interest. Charging interest was the only way to reimburse financiers for backing the long trading journeys from places like Venice. Jews were allowed into the cities (in the first "ghetto" at a former iron casting plant (the word "ghetto" actually means "casting")) to provide these banking services. NByz (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up casting in the appropriate bilingual dictionary and, to my lack of amazement, found getto (soft 'g'; evidently related to such words as inject), not ghetto (hard 'g'). – I once dreamed that someone asked me where ghetto comes from and I said "It's short for borghetto, little walled city" (from borgo). On waking I looked it up and found "Of obscure origin." —Tamfang (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OP, since you ask for something that is so vague (can you define "Jews" or "control" ?) as to be unanswerable, the place to look is to those who are themselves unreasonable. Find yourself some KKK website and you'll probably find all sorts of unsubstantiated, irrational and just plain wrong perspectives on what idiotic anti-semites claim. DOR (HK) (talk) 04:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typical infantryman's ammunition load in WWII[edit]

How many rounds/clips/magazines of ammunition would a typical WWII rifleman carry (for their personal weapon, some armies would have riflemen also carrying support weapon ammunition)? From looking around at various articles on modern loads and carrying equipment, it looks like a typical US soldier carries ~200 (the Combat medic article cites 180-210), but that is of a much smaller caliber and thus allows the soldier to carry more. 76.254.29.171 (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My father, who was a WWII rifleman, says 9 clips of 8 rounds each, if you had a bandolier, which most of them did. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Would your father know how much someone would carry if they were using a submachine gun or automatic rifle (ie, a Thompson or BAR)? 76.254.29.171 (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The standard US Army load for the M16 is a total 7 magazines (1 in the gun), which is 210 rounds. 24.6.46.177 (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The M16 is not a WWII weapon. My father carried an M1. 76, he says he didn't carry a Thompson or a BAR, so he doesn't know. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, I was referring to the modern combat medic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.46.177 (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This very detailed website may give you the information you require.--KageTora (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Los Compañeros de Zapata[edit]

I am looking for the book "Los Compañeros de Zapata", by López González. I tried searching for it on multiple browsers, but apparently it's either the rarest book out of Mexico, or I'm bad at using search engines. An interesting side note is that, despite the fact it's near-impossible to find, it is a widely referenced source on the Mexican Revolution... 68.116.189.197 (talk) 23:57, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this, though i'm not sure how much it helps you out. Grsz¹¹ 00:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that earlier. I found the page useful, but I need the book for it's reference values, and for a certain reason that would, if told to you, make this entire post seem (to the most logical minds) a complete waste of Wikipedian resources. the publication date of the book was 1980, and either the book was banned on publication, or never existed in the first place.68.116.189.197 (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of it is available on Google books at [5], though I don't know how many pages. Who then was a gentleman? There is a copy for sale here for $355 (I'm thinking Mexican pesos?) (talk) 04:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

abebooks.com lists one copy in Mexico. —Tamfang (talk) 05:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The book is available in 18 libraries listed at Worldcat. Perhaps you can get it via interlibrary loan? -Arch dude (talk) 09:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]