Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

Select a section:

WP:RD/H

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.

September 17

How do Fedex or UPS deal with geographically inconvenient senders and recipients?

If someone contracts a door-to-door package remittance service (Fedex or UPS) for the smallest possible package, and the sender and recipient are some miles away from the nearest village, would they still go on and still provide the service at a loss? Llaanngg (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They do have surcharges for remote delivery areas and remote pick-up areas. See the links to these pages at FedEx and UPS. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Given your use of "miles", I suppose that you're talking from a US perspective. Note that there's a significant difference between the two: Fedx doesn't have any US areas with remote-location surcharges, while UPS has nearly eight thousand. Nyttend (talk) 13:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While there aren't any surcharges, the calculated rate for Fedex varies based on location. older ≠ wiser 14:00, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Largest fish market in the UK

Our article on Billingsgate Fish Market describes it as "the United Kingdom's largest inland fish market" while its website says that it is "UK's largest wholesale fish market" (see here).

Is there a fish market in the UK that is larger than Billingsgate? Neutrality^talk 20:02, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found this:http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/whats-on/food-drink-news/take-look-inside-uks-biggest-10489835 Uncle dan is home (talk) 23:09, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that also claims to be the largest inland fish market in the UK. Is there some larger fish market that's coastal? Neutrality^talk 15:33, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peterhead is far and away the largest fishing port in the UK in terms of catch landed at 159,300 tonnes, followed by Lerwick (48,700 t) and Fraserburgh (26,400 t) - see UK Fishery Statistics 2014 (p. 78) - so we should probably be looking north of the border. Alansplodge (talk) 22:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Billingsgate claims "An average of 25,000 tonnes of fish and fish products are sold through its merchants each year". [1] Presumably the great majority of of fish landed at Peterhead passes through its own market [2], which is six times the volume claimed by Billingsgate. Alansplodge (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is meant by "largest"? Highest tonnage, highest value of sales, greatest physical area, number of vendors? DuncanHill (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jainism not spreading outside of India

Why didn't Jainism ever spread outside of India, unlike Buddhism which spread across throughout Asia, and Hinduism which spread to Southeast Asia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncle dan is home (talk • contribs) 23:42, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Jainism in Southeast Asia. Basemetal 00:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 18

Standing (law) in US federal courts

According to our article on Authors Guild, Inc. v. HathiTrust, the district court ruled in favor of the defendants, and on appeal, the circuit court largely sustained the original decision but remanded the case to have the district court examine whether the plaintiffs had standing. What's the point? If the plaintiff loses the case, why does it matter whether he had standing in the first place? It's an ordinary district court, not something that will generate significant precedent as far as standing is concerned, and I don't see the practical differences between the results of dismissing the case for lack of standing and the results of accepting the case and ruling for the defendant. Nyttend (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a case is dismissed on technical grounds, the decision does not set a precedent for future cases - but if there is a determination either way, it does. Wymspen (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a published decision on standing certainly sets as a precedent as to standing doctrine. You're right, of course, that if there's no decision on the merits, there's no precedent on the merits. Neutrality^talk 15:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But district courts don't have the right to establish precedent in the first place; only circuit courts and the Supreme Court can do that. Nyttend (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, a 1998 Supreme Court decision in which the court repudiated the once-widely accepted "doctrine of hypothetical standing," in which the courts could assume subject-matter jurisdiction and reach the merits of a claim if they were going to dismiss it anyway. See this summary. Neutrality^talk 15:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The court did not address one issue: The Hathi Digital Library will permit member libraries to create a replacement copy of a book, to be read and consumed by patrons, if (1) the member already owned an original copy, (2) the member's original copy is lost, destroyed, or stolen, and (3) a replacement copy is unobtainable at a fair price. The court questioned whether the plaintiffs had shown standing on this point, and it remanded for a determination. If the plaintiffs could show standing, they then could seek to show that this practice constitutes an infringement. John M Baker (talk) 05:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UK bacon vs NA bacon

In the UK the usual bacon that's consumed is the back bacon. For example, every picture in full breakfast shows back bacon. In US and Canada, the most common type is the streaky bacon.

0. What was the situation like 200-300 years ago? What type of bacon did the early immigrants to North America eat? What type of bacon was typically consumed on the British isles back then?

1. How and when did this difference occur? Pizza Margherita (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1) You have made an assumption here. It could be the other way around. Or perhaps bacon wasn't consumed before the split, and each had their own style right from the beginning. I don't know which is the case, but we need to figure that out before making any assumptions. StuRat (talk) 22:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I updated my question.Pizza Margherita (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Or perhaps bacon wasn't consumed before the split" This link[3] says bacon were consumed in the 1600's. It doesn't say which type though.Pizza Margherita (talk) 23:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[4] says that what the English call bacon now is the same as it was in 11th century although the USDA seems to disagree.[5]. Rmhermen (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research Alert - My childhood recollection of London in the 1960s was that streaky bacon was more commonly seen than now and back bacon was an expensive treat. Perhaps our entry into the EU ("Common Market" as was) brought a flood of cheap factory-farmed bacon from Denmark which brought all the prices down - Danish back bacon was certainly heavily advertised in the 1970s (just to prove my memory faulty, I found this Danish bacon advert from 1969). There also used to be a hybrid called "middle bacon" which formed a horseshoe shape when cooked - it was very popular in transport cafes as I recall. Alansplodge (talk) 10:03, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That more or less matches with my recollections of life in Cornwall (though mine are a decade later). Streaky was more common than back in the Seventies, and back is more common now. I suspect this is in part due to people thinking that they should eat less fat, and so buying the leaner cuts, and farmers rearing leaner pigs which don't give such good streaky. One can still buy middle - also called "right across" or "through cut", and bizarrely it is often cheaper than either streaky or back. It's worth remembering also that Americans don't butcher their meat in quite the same way as normal people, so exact comparisons between British and American cuts are difficult. DuncanHill (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia has an entry on the history of bacon at their bacon Wiki. Here is an article on the same at the English Breakfast Society (a club I may need to join at some time). Here is another one from the Bacon Scouts (like the boy scouts, I imagine, but greasier). --Jayron 32 12:08, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

Do Jehovah’s Witnesses follow this commandment?

The following comments were made in a previous discussion:

Extended content

I dusted off my copy of The True Bible Code (ISBN 978-0-9539396-0-2) published by an offshoot of the Jehovah's Witnesses around the time Wikipedia started (there's a version of the Share - Alike licence printed inside the front cover) and had a look inside. I doubt this offshoot is still functioning - the date it gave for Armageddon is long past (although it did feel like Armageddon at the time):

We for our part have 'finished' Newton's work in as much as we have deduced the date of 'The end of the World', as being passover 2008, or 'Good Friday' 2008, which is March 21st 2008. We do not all die on this day! Rather the primary school ends, the secondary school starts, and not everybody passes their 11 plus!

Although informative, the links do not cover what happens at Jehovah's Witness meetings, which explains the opposition to their teachings. The information was provided here:

I was aware that the Jehovah's Witnesses were formerly called Bible Students and suddenly changed their name, and reading those links I can see why. Many of you may wonder why some regimes/sects are less tolerant of this group than other Christian denominations. There's a general outline of their governance at Organizational structure of Jehovah's Witnesses. Their "liturgy" is not so much an Order of Service as a sales conference. "Publishers" (their name for the laity) are provided with a "meeting workbook" which is identical for all Kingdom Halls. Amongst Bible readings (timed to the minute), Psalms and hymns (which they call songs) there are features such as

Sample Presentations
Build Your Own Presentation and
Using Videos to Teach

Everything is geared to the Field Ministry - Kingdom Halls possess a card index featuring every household in the area. Every part of the meeting is timed to the minute, from

Opening Comments (3 min. or less) to
Preview of Next Week (3 min.)

All the meetings follow the same routine with heavy emphasis on selling - e.g.

Return visit: (4 min. or less) Demonstrate how to make a return visit on someone who accepted a tract.

86.136.177.130 (talk) 10:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.134.89.140 (talk) [reply]

I've collapsed this; it seems to be anti-JW commentary, not a question. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Writing in the Daily Telegraph of 16 September ex – Witness Deborah Frances – White tells of her experiences with the cult: The ex-Jehovah who used to go door-knocking with Peter Andre [6]. She comments

members are obliged to turn off their radios and TVs if they so much as hear their church being discussed.

What proportion of them follow this precept? 86.128.234.7 (talk) 00:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How could anyone possibly know? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Public opinion survey of JWs? Nyttend (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How many would be likely to admit to breaking church rules, assuming there is such a rule? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Social desirability bias is likely to influence survey responses, but the anonymity of opinion polling means that many more would be likely to acknowledge it to a phone pollster than they would be to church elders. This all assumes that the Society has such a precept for all members worldwide; a response of "this woman's nuts" or "that's a special British requirement for a special situation in the UK" would also resolve the question. Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone even conduct such a specific poll? If I were a JW and got an anonymous phone call asking me personal questions like that, I would probably hang up on them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having previously worked in market research for several years, I can testify that most people do that anyway. Nyttend (talk) 17:00, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US federal courthouse data

I'm trying to categorise File:Dayton bankruptcy courthouse.jpg properly and figure out if it belongs in any existing English Wikipedia articles.

Can anyone help me figure out when this courthouse was built? The List of United States federal courthouses in Ohio doesn't mention this courthouse (the Dayton entry is for a much newer courthouse across the street), even though this courthouse is still in use as such (perhaps bankruptcy courthouses aren't counted as federal courthouses?), and Google searches for the place don't return the typical GSA profile (example, for the newer "general" courthouse), so I'm not sure what other general websites to check. Land registration records for most properties in the city are available through the Montgomery County Auditor's GIS website, but they have no information on the parcels occupied by this courthouse; I'm guessing that this is because the federal government doesn't pay property tax, so the auditor's office doesn't bother assessing the property, sending tax bills to the owner, etc., as it would for most properties. Nyttend (talk) 11:47, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Found this. It also appears the bankruptcy court does not occupy the whole building, according to this there is some office space in the building unconnected to the bankruptcy court. --Jayron 32 12:01, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links; so it's the city's old post office. Now I feel silly: I've photographed it before! Nyttend (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Land registration relates to title of ownership and is distinct from taxation of buildings, which in Britain usually devolves on the occupier (I don't know if government buildings are valued for rating purposes). Registration of title is compulsory - is that the case in U S A? If it is, is there any unregistered land? If it isn't, are there voluntary schemes? (I assume that land registration is devolved to the States). In England and Wales unregistered land generally comes onto the register only when it is sold. Government land is generally not sold but passed from department to department - there are many parcels in London registered to the London County Council which has not existed for over half a century. 86.128.234.7 (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 20

Chronological sequence of chapter numbers in nomenclature for English/British/UK Acts of Parliament

Is the sequence of chapter numbers passed within a given year (e.g. 14 Geo. III) determined chronologically? In other words, is it safe to assume (got a reference?) that the passage of 15 Geo. III c. 10 predates 15 Geo. III c. 18 and both were passed before 15 Geo. III c. 31? Thanx, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Citation of United Kingdom legislation:

"Acts are today split between three series: Public General Acts, Local Acts, and Personal Acts. Each Act within each series is numbered sequentially with a chapter number. Since 1 January 1963, chapter numbers in each series have been numbered by calendar year.[1] The first Public General Act passed in a year is "c. 1", the second is "c. 2", and so on; the first Local Act of a year is "c. i", the second is "c. ii", and so on; while the first Personal Act of a year is "c. 1", the second is "c. 2", and so on (note the use of italics).

"Chapter numbers for Acts passed before 1963 are not by calendar year, but instead by the year(s) of the reign during which the relevant parliamentary session was held; thus the Jamaica Independence Act 1962 is cited as "10 & 11 Eliz. 2 c. 40", meaning the 40th Act passed during the session that started in the 10th year of the reign of Elizabeth II and which finished in the 11th year of that reign. Note that the regnal numeral is in an Arabic rather than a Roman numeral."

I found the reference to "chapter numbers" in these paragraphs confusing, but essentially it says that the actual chapter numbers (i.e. the numbers that come after the "c.") are sequential within the series, whether before or after 1963. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:47, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was fast, and greatly appreciated. I had an inkling it was the case from various similar regal years with available dates, but had searched w/o success for the answer. I will note that the various Lists of Acts of the Parliament... are currently set alphabetically and good for many things, but are not so helpful for researching chronological flow and sequence, esp when news took 6 weeks or more to arrive. Thanks again, regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Presidential candidates passing the 5% federal funding threshold

My understanding (and correct me if I'm wrong here), is that any U.S. Presidential candidate who gets 5% or more of the popular vote is eligible for federal funding. My first question is, Do we have a Wikipedia article with info on this?

My second question is, in terms of third-party candidates, which candidates, aside from Ross Perot (with his incredible 18.91% of the popular vote), have ever achieved this threshold? And in which elections?

Also, as a third question, is Gary Johnson given any significant chance by the pollsters of passing the threshold this coming election? Eliyohub (talk) 10:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have information federal funding of political candidates. Here is a run down of the most recent poll results from MANY different sources; not every poll contains the option for Johnson, those that do indicate he is polling in the 8%-9% range, though some have as low as 3% and others as high as 14%. As to your second question, EVERY Wikipedia article on U.S. elections has popular vote numbers for any candidate who polled significant numbers. --Jayron 32 10:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of third party performances in United States presidential elections should answer the second question.--Wikimedes (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do terrorists choose days with transfers of authority?

I remember seeing that during the September 11th attacks, the person who grounded all the air traffic in the country was on his first day on the job. A recent round of attacks in the New York City area occurred on the first day of the NYC Police Commissioner. [7] It isn't the first thing an American would think of, since we assume the rank-and-file does all the important stuff, but I'm wondering if someone from the Middle East might expect a police department to be paralyzed during such a changeover. And of course it does have some effect - if you're going to pick a day, might as well be that one.

Are there other attacks that have fit this model, or any commentary along this line? Wnt (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the current case, the bomber could not possibly have known when the new Commissioner would take office. --Viennese Waltz 14:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he had some inside information. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also beware of confirmation bias and anomaly hunting. How many people are new on the job on any given day? The fire chief, I think, was not exchanged. Nor the mayor. If you want to test your theory, you would first need to define all the positions you would consider to be relevant - and do so a-priori, without looking at the data. Then crunch the numbers and see if there is a correlation between un unusual number of job changers and terrorist attacks. And then probably discount it for all the terror act performed by people fired who try to get their successor ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anomaly hunting is better known as a form of cherry picking. --Jayron 32 15:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to a History-Channel like documentary I saw, early September was chosen as having the least cloudy weather in the North East statistically (in fact, I get "triggered" by beautiful fall days like that one to this day). 9/11 was chosen specifically because it was a Tuesday, rather than a Monday which may have people calling out of work for a long weekend, and symbolically because 9-1-1 is the number Americans call for emergency services. Of course that association didn't take hold, since Americans say nine-eleven in the first place and nine-one-one in the second.

The response to the attacks was led by firemen, not police officers. Of course a google search of why was september 11 chosen gives a plethora of answers. μηδείς (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Q-ships

In one of the battle scenes in the movie Operation Pacific, the American submarine is decoyed and attacked by a Japanese version of what was called a "Q-ship" during World War I. Did Japan use Q-ships at all during World War II? Our Q-ship article's World War II section says nothing about them being used in the Pacific, aside from some American vessels. Nyttend (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does this help? --Jayron 32 19:35, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting; not sure why I didn't find that before. Nyttend (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 21

Human Monoculture article

relevant discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Human_Monoculture

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article seems to be a huge essay. Is this a notable topic and a fixable article or is it just WP:MADEUP? I'm not an expert enough in the social sciences to be sure. Blythwood (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As written it is a speculative personal essay, not a real thing with RS and experts in the field to quote--it reads like a poorly written undergraduate essay. I have restored the deletion tag, if the editor wants to go the edit war route there's ANI and 3RR. You should warn him on his talk page, I am to tired (1am) to spend more time on this tonight. μηδείς (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, the word "monoculture" is an indication that what you're reading is a polemic, not genuine anthropological research (for all that cultures have merged and influenced each other, they are still extremely distinctive). There are some real concepts in there (see for instance, our articles on World systems theory, Cultural globalization, Cultural homogenization, Language shift) - from the sounds of it, this person has also subsumed moral ecology) but I don't think there's anything salvageable from this essay. This bit - "we know for certain that our next Event will occur with the eruption of super volcano Yellowstone. Its last two eruptions terminated 90% of all life to a depth of 500 meters under the ocean surface of our planet" - is ludicrously false. We have no clue about when the next Yellowstone supervolcano eruption will be, and while it certainly wouldn't be a good thing, its previous eruptions are not linked to any particular mass extinction events. Smurrayinchester 11:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked this up at google scholar earlier today and the term seems to come from a 1980 paper, and the other results were largely either quotations of that paper in a different work, or things with polemical titles such as "Manifesto..." μηδείς (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it true that a removed "prod" can't be re-prodded? Or is the one editor inventing that rule? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's true - except in cases of obvious vandalism, a removed PROD tag should never be re-added, even if the original article creator removed it. Smurrayinchester 13:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry it was me who readded the prod and I wasn't aware of that rule either. Seems a bit odd to me. I guess the idea is that the writer of the article is now aware of the interest and is expected to do something to bring the article up to scratch. But in this case I can't see him doing so. --Viennese Waltz 14:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really that odd. The point of the WP:PROD is for uncontentious cases I.E. no one is going to question the deletion or thinks it needs discussion but where it doesn't quite meet any speedy criteria. It's intended to be uncomplicated and without fuss. If it's clear this isn't the case, it doesn't merit prod. Adding allowances like two seperate editors can prod or you can re-prod after a certain amount if time etc just risks too much drama, it's not supposed to be AFD-lite. Likewise allowing the creator to de-prod avoids drama & the unfairness of them having to somehow find someone to check the article and de-prod it. Note if an article is successfully prodded, it can also normally be undeleted on request for the same reason. (There is a special form of prod for BLPs without sources which can't be removed without a source supporting something in the article being added.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough but I would have thought allowing the creator to de-prod (as happened in this case) actually adds to the drama, rather than avoiding it. Anyway it's gone to AfD now, where I don't hold out much hope for its chances. --Viennese Waltz 14:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, at AfD now. Happy to close this discussion. Blythwood (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thy word is my command. μηδείς (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laws on betting in Western Australia

I'm sorry if this is not appropriate, as I don't really spend that much time on this reference desk, but could someone provide some links to laws in Western Australia on betting outside of casinos and racing? Cheers JoshMuirWikipedia (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked through the relevant state government site? Rojomoke (talk) 13:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Lee poetry

Is there such a thing as a list of all Laurie Lee's published poems, with the works in which they appeared? Thank you, DuncanHill (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a bibliography of his works at the official website of the organization that ran his centenary celebration. There's contact information for an agent listed there. That may be a place to start. --Jayron 32 22:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, have emailed the agent. DuncanHill (talk) 22:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

what could Rsis be?

Sorry for my english. I'm trying to understand where is the Rsis region mentioned in the Zoroaster article (to solve a disambiguation problem).

The only thing I found some poets [8] or mentions of pa-rsis.

I see also that the mention of Rsis was introduced by user 182.182.25.219, any idea what this place could be ? --Melaen (talk) 22:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My only guess is that this is a typo for Fars; that is someone misread Fars as Rsis. Since Fars is in the same general region as the other places listed in that article Also, another name for Fars is Persis; so they may have forgotten to put the Pe in the front. --Jayron 32 22:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. The name of the Persian language is Farsi. 86.128.234.7 (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Less plausible, translation problem w/ Vedic Rsis? [9].—eric 15:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

Origin of meme

What is the origin of the following meme?

But we ain't got no X. We don't need no X. I don't have to show you any stinking X. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See stinking badges. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I was aware of the meme, but I had no idea that it was badges in the original. Making Deor's recent comment, already sweet, sublime. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My favorite is the simple addition of two "r"s, e.g. this page. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is just a borrowing of Trinidad Silva's shtick from UHF. Matt Deres (talk) 11:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, the "shtick" in "UHF" was actually a much-later parody of the original. --Thomprod (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, duh. It wouldn't be a parody if there wasn't an earlier original. I'm just saying that the "badgers" version came from UHF, not that hockey page. Matt Deres (talk) 15:51, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scholastic v. original in Harry Potter

Same situation as the first section of Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2010 August 15.

Right after the beginning of the third chapter of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, we're told that Dudley's headed for "Uncle Vernon's old private school, Smeltings" and that Harry's destination is "Stonewall High, the local public school". What are the corresponding descriptions in Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone? Dudley going to an Independent school (United Kingdom) doesn't sound hugely out of place, but Harry going to a Public school (United Kingdom) is obviously not in the original. Nyttend (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stonewall is "the local comprehensive" in Philosopher's Stone, and it doesn't actually specify what type of school Smeltings is (although the subsequent description makes it clear that it's an old-fashioned Public school - "independent" or "private" school covers a wide range of fee-paying schools, but public school refers specifically to the traditional type with term-time boarding, houses, boater hats and fagging.) Smurrayinchester 12:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I've just found this fairly comprehensive list of the differences between the two versions. Smurrayinchester 12:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ritual Impurities in the Kalash Culture

When were rituals of purification introduced to the Kalash culture? Was it before the people of Israel came with the bible and Leviticus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.245.194 (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Kalash people live no where near Israel or anywhere in the Levant. They live in the northwestern region of Pakistan. Are you thinking of a different cultural group? --Jayron 32 13:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I Know they did not live near each other, I was just wondering if there was any group that established rituals for purification before the people of isreal. Kalash culture was just the only group I could find that looked to have these rules of purification before the people of israel did. I hope my question makes more sense now. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.248.245.194 (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks for the clarification. Leviticus was written probably no earlier than the 600s BCE, though the traditions and rituals it details among the Ancient Hebrews likely predate it by some number of centuries. Wikipedia's article on Animal sacrifice covers some of the practices in general, while Korban covers the specific history and practice of the tradition in Judaism. Ritual purification also has some background, though it does not date the rituals of the Kalash peoples. --Jayron 32 13:58, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that your Q contains the assumption that the idea that something can be unclean and needs to be purified must have spread from one culture to another. This is not the case, as they might well independently arrive at the same conclusion. For example, if the water they drink contains sewage effluent, it is likely to cause disease, but if they boil it first, it can be said to be purified, and less likely to cause disease. Any primitive civilization may discover this, but explaining it, prior to germ theory, may well lead to a religious explanation, that the "evil" has been driven out by the heat. They may then develop other ritual purification steps, which may or may not correspond with actually making the items safer to use. For example, Jewish practices forbidding consumption of pork may have developed to avoid trichinosis, but the practice of not mixing milk and meat during cooking doesn't seem to have any purpose beyond the religious one. StuRat (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term is trans-cultural diffusion or, when working directly in athropology, just diffusionism. It has an interesting history in the social sciences (some additional material here) where researchers have alternately promulgated and rejected its importance. Whether a particular cultural trait has diffused or not (and in which direction) is often very difficult to know - and therefore is also sometimes very hotly debated. Matt Deres (talk) 15:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article; it seems to share a lot with the concept of memetics. --Jayron 32 16:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question about usa presidential voting.

I know that wikipedia has this page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election
But as a non USA user I am having an hard time to understand some part of it.
My question is, does people of an state X vote on who they want and then the winner on this state X get "points" based on the amount of Representatives and senators this state X has, and after all usa states points are found and the one with most points wins
or
people of state X vote on who they want and then the Representatives and senators of this state pick whateaver the hell they want, but usually using his state votes as a guide (because he wanted and not because he is forced to vote on his state winner), and then one candidade with most points (most senators and representatives voted on) wins
or
senators and representatives of state X vote on whatever the hell they want, people of state X vote on the candidate they want, if candidate Y wins on this state X, he receive "1 point" for each senator and representative that voted on him. The candidate with most amount of points is the winner? 177.92.128.26 (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]