Talk:Body Ritual among the Nacirema

The page Body Ritual among the Nacirema was deleted on the ground of being copyvio (archive). I believe this to be in error, and can't find a better place to bring up the issue. In June 2004, this page contained a statement that the article had been actively released into the public domain (at the time noted by me at w:Talk:Nacirema). -- Cyrius 08:38, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The page you cite is only the permission request page for including articles from the AAA in another work. Nothing is mentioned of Body Ritual Among the Nacirema.  Could you give the actual page which indicates that the work is indeed in the public domain?  Zhaladshar 17:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nothing is mentioned there now, but Internet Archive comes to the rescue. See the February 2004 version of the same page:
 * Note: Horace Miner's "Body Ritual Among the Nacirema," from American Anthropologist 58(3), 1956, pp. 503-507, which has topped the charts of AAA permission requests for some time, has entered the public domain. No request is necessary to reprint it.

They seem to have lost the notice with their reorganization around a fancy permission authorization system. -- Cyrius 21:13, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article has been restored based on the above information, which appaears to be authoritative. Eclecticology 23:37, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Should reverse & delete? Abstract (OK for use online, single-user) --- not so much for Wikisource George Orwell III (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Dowell's footnotes
Is there utility in these? Half of them are definitions, which appears to be because Dowell had prepared it as a handout for students, but othering ordinary words like "ablution" by footnoting them with definitions gives the impression that they were to be understood as Nacirema terms—since they are not, the extra conceptual layer ("is this footnote helping me understand the Nacirema, or Miner?") distracts from the conceit of the work. —71.212.195.242 15:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * No idea whether they're useful. But Wikisource presents texts as they appeared in the source material that was used.


 * If you can find a published edition that you think is more useful that this one, someone would be willing to help you put that edition up on Wikisource and then readers could select from either this edition or that edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Ah... there is definitely something that needs to be fixed here then, as this does not appear to be the text as it appeared in the source material that was used.
 * As noted in the prior talk page section, these footnotes aren't in the AAA edition that the "Information about this Edition" infobox links to as our source (neither is the intro paragraph that refers to 'pollution by females' etc.). And if we are comparing to Dowell's edition, the Notgnihsaw sentence has been restored to the main text, and the footnotes have been altered by a user who has added their own name in as well.  (Incidentally, both editions include a "References cited" section which is missing, apparently folded into the individual footnotes by that same user).  Which edition should this page be standardized to? —71.212.195.242 16:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * As long as this is standardized to a single edition, it doesn't matter which one at this point. Wiktionary can host any edition that is in public domain. We would even host both editions, if someone is willing to put in the work. They would simply be hosted under titles disambiguated to distinguish them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2018 (UTC)