Humanities desk
< September 21	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 23 >

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.

September 22[edit]

Origin of meme[edit]

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]

I'd only seen it in a Wisconsin Badgers context, which is a natural "progression" from badges; I began wondering about and looking for badgers versions months ago, and your link here is the first time I've ever heard of UHF. Nyttend (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just revisited Alfonso Bedoya's delivery. Thanks for bringing this up, and whoever hasn't seen the film yet, put it on your list! ---Sluzzelin talk 21:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scholastic v. original in Harry Potter[edit]

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]

Great find, Smurrayinchester. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ritual Impurities in the Kalash Culture[edit]

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]

It does. You could even argue that diffusion relates to memetics in the same way that evolution relates to genetics. Matt Deres (talk) 13:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The short answer is that there is insufficient historical information to date the origins of Kalash ritual purification. It is not even clear that there was a Kalash people at the time of Leviticus; the Kalash themselves are said to claim origin from the army of Alexander the Great, although some historians argue against this. John M Baker (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Direct cultural lineage exclusively from the army of Alexander would be preposterous, but Greek cultural influence is likely, given the long history of Greek cultural connections, i.e. the Indo-Greek Kingdom, the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom, etc. However, the point is well taken regarding the lack of direct cultural coherence back that far. Many, if not most, modern cultural groups are rarely more than a few centuries old. Finding some that can trace a cultural legacy, with a coherent language, traditions, etc. back 3 millennia is very rare. --Jayron 32 18:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question about usa presidential voting.[edit]

I know that wikipedia has this page:
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 that 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]

The article you want is Electoral College (United States). Short version: when a US voter votes for a given presidential candidate, they are in fact electing a state elector from that candidate's party. Each state has as many electors as it has Senators and Representatives combined, but the electors are [I]different people[/I] from those elected members, and do not have a legislative role. The District of Columbia has three electors even though it has no other federal representation. In most cases, the electors are assigned on a 'winner takes all' basis - so all 55 of California's electors go to whichever party's candidate has a simple majority of votes in the state. (Nebraska and Maine are the only states to allot electors proportionately, and only then those which correspond to their Representatives, not their Senators.) The 538 electors then vote for the President. The expectation is that they'll vote for their own party's candidate, but there is the possilibity of a faithless elector, and this election may see this happen. So far, this has never affected the final outcome. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The most important thing to understand about the United States is the role of Federalism in the United States. There are rules, laws, procedures, and policies of the Federal government of the United States, largely organized by the rules set up under the United States Constitution as well as the laws of the United States Code. Then there are the rules, laws, and policies of the US States, which are determined by various state Constitutions as well as state laws. With regard to elections in the United States, including that of the President, there are multiple layers of rules and regulations about them. Just dealing with the Presidential election for the time being, here are all of the layers that govern it:

Article Two of the United States Constitution describes the federal laws for electing the President. All it requires is that each state provide a number of electors who themselves actually vote for and elect the president. These electors are called the Electoral College and it currently has 538 electors. The constitution does not cover how states appoint, nominate, or elect these members of the electoral college, merely that the electors cannot otherwise be officeholders of the U.S. government.
Individual states are entirely left to their own devices to decide how to appoint, elect, and direct their electors to vote. Currently, all 50 states use the results of a popular vote to determine and direct how their electors are supposed to vote; that is the normal procedure is that on Election Day (United States), voters select who they want their electors to vote for, and then the state usually requires the electors to support the state's choice in their vote; all but two of the states are winner takes all, meaning that whoever gets the plurality of the votes in that state gets ALL of that state's electors, while the other two (Maine and Nebraska) split their elector's votes. However, ALL 50 states and the District of Columbia do NOT allow their electors free choice in who to vote for, the electors are mandated by state laws in each state to support the popular vote. That being said, those laws do not actually prevent electors from voting on their own, so-called faithless electors have not caused any election to deviate from the expected result, however their votes have never been nullified or thrown out, meaning that despite the state laws being on the books preventing it, faithless electors votes are still legally binding regarding the results of the Electoral College.

So, that's the system: there are 538 electors who actually vote for the President. Federal law only established the existence of those electors, the states decide who they are, and how they vote, currently the expectation (and state law usually demands) that they vote in accordance to the popular vote on election day. --Jayron 32 17:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, all 50 states use the results of a popular vote to determine and direct how their electors are supposed to vote....However, ALL 50 states and the District of Columbia do NOT allow their electors free choice in who to vote for, the electors are mandated by state laws in each state to support the popular vote. No, sorry, you're confused. The popular vote does not constrain the electors; rather, it determines which electors are appointed.

It's not that Virginia has thirteen electors already chosen, waiting around to see how Virginia voters tell them to vote. Rather, there will be a slate of thirteen electors pledged to Clinton, thirteen pledged to Trump, thirteen pledged to Johnson, etc. Depending on how Virginia voters vote, one of these slates will be appointed. Then the electors will (most likely) vote for the candidate they promised to vote for.

According to faithless elector, in 21 states, there is no law saying that a given elector must vote for the candidate to whom he/she is pledged. The article doesn't seem to have the current list, unfortunately; someone should check the refs. In the other 29 states and DC, there is such a law, but it is not clear that it is enforceable. --Trovatore (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In practice, of course, you can say it doesn't make that much difference — either way, the normal course of events is for the candidate who wins the popular vote in a given state to take the electoral votes from that state. But I've seen this misconception before, and it brings up the wrong image, that of an elector who has to say, "you know, I really prefer Kang, but the people of my state voted for Kodos, so I guess I have to vote for Kodos". It's not like that. If the people vote for Kodos, then the elector will be one who has supported Kodos from the beginning. --Trovatore (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Thank you for your clarifications. --Jayron 32 01:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your gracious response! --Trovatore (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Art Print by Laufer[edit]

I am seeking the name of an artist of a print I bought. The print is number 8 of a limited edition of 10; it is a pen and ink drawing of a san pan or junk, with a Camus quotation, "What Gives Value To Travel Is Fear" (the quote is unattributed). It is signed Laufer 1994. Any idea whom the artist might be? 71.28.205.150 (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC) 71.28.205.150 (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Susan Laufer? -- Susan seems unlikely, but there are also other Laufers 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C961:7672:AF60:8B17 (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) There is also the husband and wife artists Sigmund Laufer and Miriam Laufer. and artist Milia Laufer. --Jayron 32 16:53, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sigmund has done paintings with boats and pen & ink drawings:[1] His style is quite recognizable. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C961:7672:AF60:8B17 (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]