Miscellaneous desk
< March 29	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 31 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded 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 30[edit]

Turban Statistics[edit]

As is well known, and documented by various references under our article Turban, non-Muslim turban wearers are sometimes mistaken for Muslims and attacked (not that random attacks on actual Muslims, or anyone else, is in any way justifiable). There being no relevant figures in the above-linked article that I can see, I was wondering:

What proportion of Muslims worldwide do/do not wear turbans?
What proportion of turban wearers worldwide are/are not Muslims?

My uninformed guess is that both figures will be less than 10/90%, which would at least highlight the logical (as well as moral) absurdity of such attacks. [Posted under Miscellaneous rather than Humanities due to the current semi-protection of the latter – feel free to move!] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 14:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, there's about 27 million Sikhs in the world (Sikh#Demographics), and from what I can tell a very high percentage of Sikh males wear a turban in public. So chalk that up as maybe 13 million non-muslim turban wearers. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adult male sikhs wear the turban - so probably not quite as many as you think once you exclude the children. 217.44.50.87 (talk) 15:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. It looks like they can start at any age [1], but often start when they start high school or college. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a nice little report [2] on specifically the notion that Sikhs get pegged as terrorists in the USA. An interesting point made that none of the 9/11 attackers wore beards or turbans, and that in NYC, the "Osama bin Laden" look is most likely to correlate with Sikhs, not Muslims. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note a key point as mentioned in the article you linked to is it depends on what you mean by a turban. As that article mentions, a number of Muslims wear headdress not normally described as a turban like the Keffiyeh although it depends on numerous factors including precisely how it's worn. Then there are things like the Taqiyah (cap) and Songkok which would basically never be called a turban (although turbans are sometimes worn with these). Nil Einne (talk) 17:57, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All Shi'a clergymen must wear turban (specifically named 'Ammama) in public. Their turbans are either white or black. Those who wear the black ones claim that they are the Prophet's descendants. Omidinist (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huge penis[edit]

Why, when how and where did this cultural obsession with penis size about. Did one day, some guy 100 years ago ask another guy how big his willy was, and the whole craze about dick size snow balled from there on in. It's obsurd, and has no biological relevance. Just ask Mr Chimpanzee sitting over there.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.79.32.1 (talk • contribs)

For the Etoro of New Guinea they still don't care. It's all about the amount of semen you can make and the size of your testicles. The numerous tribes of New Guinea also wear penis gourds and the ones with the many times too long gourds are not necessarily bragging to the tribes with the small gourds. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See sexual selection for the general concept and sexual selection in humans which discusses human penis size. --Jayron 32 18:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Codpiece article suggests that, at least in Europe, we can definitively trace the obsession back in time at least 450 years to medieval outfits that exaggerated penile size, and possibly trace it back 5000 years depending on what you think the Minoans were up to. --M @r ē ino 19:30, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why were codpieces pedestrian yet any indications at all of womens' ankle shape was too hot to show? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe those two fashions were centuries apart, but the reason is that women's virginity was more prized than men's. This, in turn, was because inheritance becomes complicated if the women are unfaithful, but not if the men are (assuming illegitimate children get nothing, as was done back then). StuRat (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From 1 year before the picture in our codpiece article.
This painting of this regal looking lady is from 1555, fully within the codpiece era. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that a codpiece doesn't actually show anything. Similarly, women wore corsets and petticoats that hugely exaggerate the waist, hips and backside (few examples here) - they don't show any skin, so they don't violate the social codes of the time, but they're still suggestive. Smurrayinchester 08:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Chimpokomon? μηδείς (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A chimpokemon. There's a new idea for an adversary for Pikachu.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

02:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its not how big it is. Its what you do with it.--178.101.224.162 (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More anti-Brexit propaganda. Americans know the actual truth. μηδείς (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also Priapus and Priapeia. -- ToE 03:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Urban legend?[edit]

Once I heard a story passed down from friends about a local branch of a popular and well known fast food chain. The story goes along the lines that a number of male employees were purposely ejaculating in one particular female customers burger. She only found out after swabs were done in the back of her throat due to soreness, and the DNA of 3 individuals were found. Is there any veracity in this, if multiple people performed this act, would the customers reaction tally in with the story.

I understand this happened in south London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.19.245.126 (talk) 23:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Highly doubtful. Not least, a DNA analysis is not the sort of thing one would tend to associate with a sore throat diagnosis. See also snopes on a similar (yet even more revolting) story. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Harold Brunvand's book, "Too Good to be True", lists a number of food contamination legends, including; the Kentucky fried rat, the urine soaked peanuts, and the mouse in the Coke, but unfortunately no McJiz Burger. On a personal level, speaking as someone who worked as a KP when he was fourteen, I can confirm that some pretty disgusting things go on in restaurants, although I don't recall anyone shooting their fat in anything. I guess therefore, you need to ask yourself a few questions, such as: Given that those taking the orders are not the same people putting the food on the racks, how do they make sure their victim gets the burger? Given that this all occurs front of house, how does three guys wanking in a bun go unnoticed? As Tagishsimon points out, why is she having a DNA test for a sore throat? How long do you think spunk stays at the back of the throat? And lastly, would you not notice 30 CCs of jissom in your burger? If you still think it's true, console yourself with the thought that it'll probably be the most nutritious burger you've had from a fast food outlet.--Ykraps (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post of the day brilliant analysis, Ykraps. Cheers, _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the general lines of unfortunate kitchen practices, George Orwell's autobiographical Down and Out in Paris and London is worth a read. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 12:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]