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.

March 20

Capital Of the UK

why do we say that the capital Of the UK is in London when all of the Institutions of government are in the separate city of Westminster. The city of London proper is miniscule and a business district. The rest is just the 32 boroughs and Greater London which, while important, don’t qualify as a capital city. —Andrew 22:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew. Our article Capital city explains that there is not a standardized convention across countries for which city is called the capital. A capital is typically a city that physically encompasses the government's offices and meeting places; the status as capital is often designated by its law or constitution. In some jurisdictions, including several countries, the different branches of government are located in different settlements. In some cases, a distinction is made between the official (constitutional) capital and the seat of government, which is in another place. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, but that's not what's going on. What's going on is that when people refer to London they generally do not, and in this case specifically they do not, mean the City of London but rather the entire metropolis, including Westminster. I thought the "London" article used to address this in the lead section, but if it ever did, it doesn't now. It does say lower down that "London" can mean "Greater London". --76.69.46.228 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC), confusing wording corrected later.[reply]

Wikipedia will follow what sources say. A lot of human language is pretty vague. You seem to not like the use of the word "city" when there's some kind of "subdivision" below the level of "city", but this is true in places all over the world. Just in the U.S., some cities are also their own counties, and some cover multiple counties. Let's not even get started on city-states. In practice, "city", in informal contexts, generally means "a single area covered by a human settlement without any significant unsettled area", though, like all definitions, there are inevitable exceptions. In olden days, cities were often walled for protection, and since walls became infeasible beyond a certain size, the walled area (as well as that delimited by any natural barriers) was the "city", and anything outside was suburbs, villages, etc. In the modern age, city walls are no more, and faster transport makes it possible for a larger area to be a single, cohesive community. This is why formerly walled cities like London and Paris now sprawl far beyond their historical boundaries and have swallowed up what used to be separate cities, towns, and so on. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 08:13, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So in short, Andrew you are simply confusing London with the City of London. They are not the same thing, the City of London is a tiny part of the Capital of the United Kingdom. --Lgriot (talk) 14:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure I am Westminster is an entirely separate city and as far as I know the only one of the boroughs with City status —Andrew 07:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The City of London and (City of) Westminster are entirely separate and are the two boroughs of Greater London with city status. But it's Greater London that's the capital. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 08:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See London#Toponymy: "Until 1889, the name "London" applied to the City of London, but since then it has also referred to the County of London and Greater London". Prior to that, organisations that covered the wider London area used the adjective "Metroplitan"; the Metropolitan Police and the Metropolitan Board of Works are examples. However, the term "London" was used colloquially for the whole conurbation before well that; for instance, London Labour and the London Poor (1851) encompasses Southwark, Clerkenwell and Holborn as well as the City. Alansplodge (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the OP were correct in noting that the Capital (City of London) is not the Seat of Government (City of Westminster) for the UK/England (which if they were writing this at some point in the past they would be correct, so even though they are both part of London now, they weren't always!), even if we take that as given, it is not unique or uncommon. See Capital_city#Capitals_that_are_not_the_seat_of_government which has some current and historical examples. If you also include countries with multiple capitals, or with distributed government (those where the government functions are spread out over a number of locations, with no defined or de-facto capital) then there are well over a dozen countries that have such arrangements. --Jayron 32 14:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Writing Scripts

I sometimes see character sets used to write Languages of India that I do not recognize, except in vaguely recognizing them as Indian character sets. Are these character sets alphabetic in the sense of being representations of phonemes? What is their history? In particular, do they historically trace back to the ancient North Semitic abjad, which is said to be the ancestor of all alphabetic scripts, or do they have a separate origin? What articles do we have in the English Wikipedia on the character sets, other than the Roman alphabet and the Arabic alphabet, that are used to write languages of India? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Devanagari is the most commonly used of the scripts, and that it is an abugida. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good link! I see we also have Brahmic scripts, about this family of scripts. These articles don't seem to have a definite answer (and there may not be a definite answer) about whether the original Brahmi Script had any Semitic influence or not. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 21

Arab demographics hundred years ago

How many Arabs lived in the world a hundred years ago?

Also, do you have information on the development of Arab demographic from the beginning of Islam to the present? 84.108.88.30 (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Imo, you should find the total Arab population today, and the total world population today, and find that percentage. Then, find the world population for 1900 and multiple that by the % Arabs today. This is of course, assuming the % of Arabs is approximately the same. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

It is not possible to answer this question. Even assuming that all the countries where Arabs of some definition lived were keeping suitable records throughout this period, Arab can be so variously defined as to make comparison of figures meaningless (our article helpfully lists seven different possibilities). Henry ^Flower 08:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Journal articles Thumbelina and female-leading fairy tales

Are there any journal articles that deal with analysis of Thumbelina or other female-leading fairy tales? Donmust90 (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "journal articles"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:29, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the OP means articles published in academic or scholarly journals (likely those specialising in Folklore studies or Feminist theory), and that most people reading the query would understand that.

Donmust90, you might approach this by checking out the Footnotes and References in the articles on Thumbelina and any other stories you consider relevant (if you haven't already). As this isn't my field, hopefully more knowlegeable editors will be able to make better focussed suggestions. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.138.194 (talk) 03:15, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 22

U.S. Supreme Court and Illinois S.C. questions.

What are some examples of cases in the U.S. or Illinois Supreme Court, where.

-All the voters on 1 side, and the other, were either all former prosecutors (predominantly) and former defenders/lawyers.
-All the voters on 1 side, and the other, were all Republicans or Democrats (for preferably criminal cases).
-And divided by race.

Anyways, I'm from Chicago and recently, there was a White cop shooting a Black teen 17 times killing him Shooting of Laquan McDonald, and he got 2nd degree murder, but only 6.75 years. The Illinois Attorney General is appealing it directly for some kind of a new trial, as the lower judge cited a ruling (but on the minority side of that ruling, not majority), for why he chose to give the lesser charge. 4 judges denied that motion, with 1 both for and against, 1 against, and 1 unvoted. The only judge that was against, was the only Black judge on the court. And all the judges that were Republican were on the denying side. And the 1 judge that remained unvoted was a former public defender and everyone else former prosecutors (though the Black judge was a former civil lawyer). 67.175.224.138 (talk) 02:11, 22 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Some organization like the ACLU or SPLC might have stats like that about judges. FWIW I was surprised at the notion of retrying the shooter for a higher charge, since that would be double jeopardy. But the article says he was tried and convicted of 2nd degree murder and 16 counts of aggravated battery (one for each shot fired at Laquan McDonald), but sentenced only for the 2nd degree murder. The court case was over a request to vacate the murder conviction and sentence for the aggravated battery counts. Presumably that would be a longer total sentence. If that was the goal, though, I don't know why they wanted to vacate the murder conviction. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the source our article cited provided a clue and a quick search seemingly confirmed that the reason it's surprising is because the source is simply wrong. There was no request to vacate the conviction. Just the sentence. I've updated our article with a new source which also mentions what the OP mentioned i.e. that the request was denied. Other sources say the same thing e.g. [1], that the request was only to vacate the sentence. Vacating the sentence was necessary since Illinois law only allow a person to be sentenced on the more serious conviction. The dispute was over whether aggravated battery convictions or second-degree murder conviction were the more serious conviction. While aggravated battery may seem to be a less serious crime, this isn't reflected in the sentence ranges allowed under law. (There was an additional complication because there were multiple aggravated battery convictions and some may have been more serious than others, possibly allowing consecutive sentences but I'm not sure there was precedent or legal argument that the multiple counts meant it was more serious. I think was separate.) Nominally, vacating the conviction may have also helped ensure a better sentence but would likely have been unpopular with many. And more to the point, I don't think 'we want to vacate the conviction because although we think the person is fully guilty and deserves the conviction which was properly established in a court of law in accordance with the law, we think he'll have a higher sentence if he wasn't convicted' is a good legal argument. Nil Einne (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 23

Oldest Korean text

Are there any Korean text written in Classical Chinese which predates the year 1000? What is the oldest text of Korean history? Is there anything comparable to the Japanese Kojiki in age? I’ve found the Samguk yusa but that is extremely late. KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Gwanggaeto Stele? It's just in Chinese though, not Korean written in Chinese characters, if that's what you mean. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stereo recording of Stabat Mater (Pergolesi)

This desk seemed more likely to be familiar with recordings of Pergolesi’s Stabat Mater than the Entertainment desk.

I’m trying to remove the vocals from a recording, so that I and a friend can sing to an instrumental accompaniment (privately). I know how one can usually do this in Audible, but it needs the track to have been recorded in stereo with the audio in the centre? And it doesn’t work with either my Rousset version or my Hogwood version.

Do you happen to know a version (which I would happily buy) that this would work on?

Thanks. 2A02:C7D:A399:8600:A1C2:AA0A:647A:DED2 (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one: [2] (CD or download) Don't know how well Audible's Out Of Phase Stereo isolation would work (I use Audacity). —107.15.157.44 (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube search for "Pergolesi stabat mater instrumental" found several versions without vocals. You could also give the vocal remover at phonicmind.com a try. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 20:44, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those ‘instrumentals’ are generally midis or piano accompaniments, which make for a very unsatisfying experience, musically. I’ve looked. If you’ve found any that use string instruments, please do let me know (there do seem to be some for Rossini’s Stabat Mater, which affects the results when I search). (And I meant Audacity, haha. I’m typing while tired.) I’ve bought a track from that recording, to try in the morning: I hope it works, because those vocals are really not my preferred style! Thanks. 2A02:C7D:A399:8600:3DBA:6CFD:429B:A2C4 (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked and there are a few there: here is one that points to a registration-only site, and here is one that points to the site of (oddly enough) a vocalist. You could keep checking. I think there are better ways to remove the vocal from a recording now than center channel cancellation. That's what that other site I mentioned claims to do, though I haven't tried it. vocalremover.com is another one. Here is a reddit thread with a link to an arxiv paper and some comments on it, if of interest. The method in the paper was apparently still pretty crude, but it is a few years old, so maybe stuff is better now. I remember an Nvidia press release saying something about it recently but I wasn't able to find it with a quick web search. 173.228.123.166 (talk) 04:22, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 24

Oaxes

Is Oaxes a character from Greek mythology, or only a Greek character who shows up in Roman mythology? The article cites one Greek author (but he lived in the fifth century of the Christian era) and a bunch of Romans. It also mentions a reference to him by Apollonius, but as there were a good number of men by that name, I'm not clear who's meant. The sources on this article don't have any answer to the question, which doesn't surprise me as Oaxes seems to be a thoroughly minor figure, and Google persistently gives me results for axes. Nyttend (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Appolonius page you linked says (as you may already have seen) that Stephanus cited one Apollonius of Ascalon (presumably concerning Oaxes) but that gets us no further forward since he's also little known (such that we have no article or other mention of him).

Oaxes is sufficiently obscure that Robert Graves makes no mention of him in The Greek Myths. My guess (FWIW) is that any folk-etymological origin myth attributing to him the founding the city of Axus/Oaxos/etc., most likely named after an adjacent river, was sufficiently local to or within Crete that any other, earlier Greek references to it have not survived. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.200.138.194 (talk) 09:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apollonius in this case is Apollonius of Rhodes, who mentions Oaxes (or Oaxus) in his Argonautica. But in Greek it says "Oiaxian land" and it simply means Crete, in the story of Anchiale and the Idaean Dactyls. The reference to Oaxes being the son of Anchiale and Apollo comes from Maurus Servius Honoratus. Stephanus says Oaxes is the son of Acacallis (and grandson of Minos but doesn't mention Apollo or any other father. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:24, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you. With Category:Mythological Greek characters being proposed for merger into Category:Characters in Greek mythology, I was checking articles that mentioned Virgil or the Aeneid (an original-to-Virgil character is a Greek character who shows up in Roman mythology, not a character from Greek mythology), and Oaxes was the only one whose status I really couldn't determine. The link to the correct Apollonius and the correct spelling of his epic (it was Argonautics in the Oaxes article) allowed me to resolve it easily. Nyttend (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy examples.

What are some examples of.

1. If you say you're A, you have to also say you're not B, because if you don't, people are gonna accuse you of being (A and) B at the same time.

2. People assume that if you if like A, you have to be against B, and if you like B, you have to be against A. But the analogy is, you can hate both A and B at the same time. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Our articles at false dilemma and Law of excluded middle may be of help to you regarding search terms and examples. Matt Deres (talk) 13:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For how much Money did the Watchtower Inc have sold the "Gilead" building & Kingdom Farm in South Lansing, NY?

According to this pdf document http://www.manitobaphotos.com/theolib/downloads/Kingdom_Farm_and_Gilead_School.pdf it was 600 acre big. --46.167.62.33 (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody?--46.167.62.33 (talk) 01:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In what case was being called a Federalist considered libel?

I know, according to this site here: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/AJA2972.0001.001?rgn=main;view=fulltext, in Indiana on 9/3/1857, a man was accused of being a Federalist, sued for libel, and won a thousand dollars. The site describes "Joshua Harlan, plaintiff, and John Allen, defendant. Judge Sparks was at the time President Judge, but was not on the bench until after the verdict was returned. The case was tried before the Associates. General James Noble was counsel for the plaintiffs, and John Test for the defendant." The only thing I can't find is the name of this case, and which court it was tried in. Presumably, the name would be Harlan vs. Allen, but I've searched for that online and can't find anything. This leads to my confusion over which court it was tried in- obviously not the Supreme Court, but I don't know if it was in a county court or the Indiana state court, since I can't find the case name to search for it. Others on history Q&A forum sites (stack exchange, for example) have suggested it was in Franklin County, Indiana, but I still can't find the name. Thank you so much for any help you can offer! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.19.99.189 (talk) 20:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IN early times there was tried in the Franklin Circuit Court an action for libel... "Franklin Circuit Court" definitely means Franklin County, because a trial in Franklin, Indiana would have been held in the Johnson County courts. Let me see what else I can find. Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked History of Franklin County Indiana : her people, industries and institutions, https://books.google.com/books?id=QVE0AQAAMAAJ, and found circumstantial evidence but nothing solid. Page 244 includes a list of the presiding judges of the county circuit courts, a list with nobody named Sparks, but note the comment near the top of 243 about the paucity of records. Page 235 notes that justices of the peace (some lawyers; some uneducated men, like farmers or tavern keepers) played a significant role in the county's early courts. Conversely, an Elijah Sparks was the first member of the county bar, page 236. The 1857 date is definitely wrong, since "in early times" wouldn't make much sense for an event that occurred more than forty years after statehood (1816), and more importantly, General James Noble was counsel for the plaintiffs, and James Noble died in February 1831. We can narrow the date further because the defense counsel was John Test, who was in Congress from 1823 to 1827 and from 1829 to 1831 (session ended in March), so presumably it happened before 1823 or between 1827 and 1829. Moreover, one of the speeches refers to the impeachment of Judge Chase, and Samuel Chase was impeached in 1811. Nyttend (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He could have practiced law while serving in Congress. Congress only met maybe four months of the year then.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I didn't remember that. So we're back to 1811-1831 [another 1811-as-minimum matter: the county was organized in that year], but "in early times" suggests to me the territorial era or the first few years after statehood when everything was still primitive and undeveloped, as does the atmosphere of the story, with all the backwoodsmen called to the bar to define "federalist". Remember that the Federalist Party died out in the mid-1820s, and defining a Federalist as being a tory, an enemy to his country wouldn't make a lot of sense during the Era of Good Feelings, in contrast to the era of the War of 1812, when Federalist-dominated New England talked of seceding from the Union so it could avoid the other states' desire for war. Finally, note that I checked the cited source and the Biographical and genealogical history of Wayne, Fayette, Union and Franklin counties, Indiana volume 2, https://books.google.com/books?id=LClEAQAAMAAJ. There were no Joshua Harlans, and the only Harlands [a common variant] were George and Joshua Harland, who appeared in a names-only list of taxpayers in 1811 (History of Franklin...). John Allen is a prominent figure for having laid out much of the county seat of Brookville and building the first mill, but this incident wasn't mentioned in either book. Herndon doesn't appear in the biographical record, and while the county history mentions a Herndon who migrated from Kentucky and became one of the county's earliest settlers (which would make sense for someone who came to the Territory of Indiana before the army under Gen. George Roger Clark marched upon Post Vincent; see Illinois campaign and Fort Vincennes), there's basically nothing else on him. I also checked volume 1 of this book and found nothing more. Nyttend (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In 1840, Whig presidential candidate William Henry Harrison was accused of being a supporter of John Adams. Adams had appointed or commissioned Harrison ... like five of the first six presidents. But saying you were a Federalist or an Adams supporter was really the same thing, you supported the Alien and Sedition Acts and were generally an opponent of the divinely inspired (or so it was widely believed) American system of government. This was in an era when the only wall hanging would be a print of Stuart's Washington or an engraving of the presidents so far ... People like Adams were seen as villains. Adams recovered as people died who remembered him and his policies, and as greater villains came along in the 1850s and 1860s.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic symbol

During Saint Patrick's Day I was reading the topical article to someone when I noticed this image: file:St Patricks Day Inter Church Procession, Downpatrick, March 2010 (03).JPG and particularly the symbol at the middle of the cross. It resembles a dollar sign but with three vertical strokes rather than one or two; could it perhaps be a stylised monogram, such as a christogram? The same symbol is visible on a depiction of a monstrance on a stained-glass window in an ex-church near me. What is the significance to Catholicism? Thanks in advance. Arlo James Barnes 23:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a Christogram. This one. In the gallery of illustrations, note the third one. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 02:51, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much! I found the category commons:category:IHS in Ireland and have added that photo to it; I will do the same (but "in the United States") for a photo I plan to take of the window. Thanks again for the assistance. Arlo James Barnes 19:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 25

Getting married in your backyard and other non-event halls, plus having "regular people" officiating marriages.

In the United States, it's very common for weddings to take places at venues other than courthouses, city halls, places of worship, or event halls: for example, weddings can take places at a house, a backyard, in a public park, or som other place of interest. In addition, it's not uncommon for wedding in the US to be officiated by someone other than a clergyperson, a politician, or a judge. For example, in such weddings, weddings could be officiated by professional officiators, or even a friend or family member who got "ordained" online. My question is, are such practices common outside the United States? I'm aware that in many if not most countries, legally-binding weddings are required to be officiated by either a cleric or by government officers, or that legally-binding weddings can only take place either in public halls, places of worship, or government offices, but are American-style weddings still practiced in such countries or elsewhere? If not, then how did these American-style weddings develop and why are they not as common outside the US? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:11, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The articles Marriage officiant, Officiant, Celebrant (Australia), and the references therein may be helpful. Loraof (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- for Canada see Marriage commissioner - British Columbia began its Marriage commissioner program in 1982 - Epinoia (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From Marriage officiant#Scotland: Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom where Humanist weddings are recognised as legal by the state and is only one of eight countries in the world where Humanist weddings are legally recognised, the others as of 2017 are: Australia, Canada, Iceland, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway and some states of the United States of America.

Loraof (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I read though that at least in Canada, celebrants need to be registered with the government and that officiating weddings is required to be either their full-time or part-time jobs, which doesn't seem to parallel the case in the United States where, at least in some states, anyone could officiate a marriage provided they get the necessary paperwork and "training". Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:55, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we had a professional wedding officiant, that was just his regular job I guess. He was government-registered. My understanding from American TV is that you could just print something from the Internet that says you can perform weddings, but I don't think you can do that in Canada. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In England, a review of the law is underway to allow weddings to take place outdoors, currently it has to be " in a structure with a solid, permanent roof with a designated licence". See Outdoor wedding rule change 'will make a world of difference'. Before about 1990 (can't find the date at the moment) it had to be in a church or register office. At one time, only a Church of England church could do the complete legal package, other denominations had to traipse off from the church to the register office. Alansplodge (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here in Virginia, in addition to a clergy, or a present or retired state or federal judge, one can be married by a marriage celebrant, who is licensed by the local circuit court to perform marriages within the jurisdiction. A relative of a friend of mine was married by one who was a local lawyer. I knew someone who did them in my county who most of the time worked as an interpreter. I remember one of the local circuit court judges fired all of them in his jurisdiction and appointed new ones, I think there had been excessive fees.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:01, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Bishop Yes, it's different in Canada. To become an officiant, there are several steps you must take; it is much more involved (and costly) than simply printing out a sheet of paper. For example, I plan on registering as an officiant via the Ontario Humanists Society, however, I can't proceed to the next step as I must have been registered with the OHS for at least a year to even take the requisite course. That course will also cost money. When I was investigating the options last summer I found quicker solutions, but they were much more costly. It's much more regulated than in the US. For example, a complete list of religious officiants in Ontario is available here. (In this context, "non"-religious would mean folks like judges and justices, etc. who can perform civil marriages). Matt Deres (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ashkenazi Jewish surnames

When approximately did Ashkenazi Jews adopt surnames ending with -ich, -itz (like Rabinovich, Horowitz, etc) and -sky/i (like Jabotinski)? One would presume that initially they had German-styled surnames, ending with -mann and -berg and after migrating into Russian-speaking regions adopted new ones accordingly. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have sources for it, unfortunately, but according to Jewish surname#History, this dates back to the 18th and 19th centuries, when surnames were adopted as a condition of Jewish emancipation in some central and eastern European countries. And prior to that, most Ashkenazi Jews did not have surnames, with exceptions including Cohen, Levi and Meir, which were kind of special. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish surname#Ashkenazic Jewry would be a good place to start researching this topic. --Jayron 32 13:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Were Algerians able to freely move to European France before 1962?

Back when Algeria was a part of France (1830-1962), were Algerians able to freely move to European France and permanently stay there if they so desired? Or did France restrict the movement of Muslim Algerians in order to prevent too many of them from moving to European France?

I know that France prevented a lot of harkis (pro-French Algerian Muslims) from moving to European France after Algeria gained its independence in 1962--something that I certainly think was a mistake given that the harkis risked their lives and well-being for France in the Algerian War. However, what about beforehand? Was it easier for Muslim Algerians to move to European France in, say, 1950? Futurist110 (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a detailed article in the French wikipedia: [3]. Starting in 1947, Algerians were considered French citizens and could indeed move freely to France proper in order to find work. Many took advantage of that as social conditions in Algeria were not great. That ended in 1962, but it did not slow down the wave of Algerian immigration to France however, as according to that article, the Algerian population France grew from 350,000 to 800,000 from 1962 to 1982. --Xuxl (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this information! By the way, it's a bit strange that the harkis were prevented from moving to European France after Algeria acquired independence in 1962. One would think that if a country loses a part of its territory as a result of secession, then it would be willing to accept any of its citizens from this newly independent country who want to move to the old country. For instance, I am presuming that, had the Scottish independence referendum succeeded five years ago, then all Scots who would have wanted to move to the United Kingdom would have been free to do so--at least within a certain time frame. Was it actually legal to strip the harkis of their French citizenship without their consent? Futurist110 (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"The migration of Algerians to France happened in multiple waves: from 1913-1921, from 1922-1939, and from 1940-1954". From Algerians in France. Alansplodge (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this information! Futurist110 (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article titled French Algeria has a complex discussion of the matter, from 1830-onwards, French migrants to Algeria and their descendants, the pied-noirs, were always considered French Citizens, and had the same rights as any citizen resident in Metropolitan France. The rights afforded to Algerian natives were limited, at first, and evolved over time. Literally, the path to citizenship for Algerians was instituted in the 1860s and such "naturalized" French citizens were called "Les Évolué" or "The Evolved". It wasn't until the constitution of the French Fourth Republic that native Muslim Algerians were granted full equal citizenship rights, but that was the late 1940s, and by then it was probably too-little, too-late, as their was a significant separatist movement already underway, that actually brought down the Fourth Republic and caused France itself to reorganize into a Fifth Republic barely more than a decade later (see Algerian Crisis). --Jayron 32 18:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this information! Also, wasn't there gerrymandering against the Muslim Algerians even after they were given French citizenship in 1947? I seem to recall reading on Wikipedia about how the pieds-noirs and Muslim Algerians had the same amount of representation in the French Parliament in spite of the fact that there was something like seven times more Muslim Algerians than there were pieds-noirs. Also, was it actually legal for France to strip the harkis of French citizenship without their consent after the end of the Algerian War? I mean, one would think that if the pieds-noirs and Muslim Algerians were genuinely equal before the law, then France would have been willing to allow not only all pieds-noirs who want to move to France to do so, but also allow all Muslim Algerians who want to move to France to do so. Futurist110 (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that all Algerians were equal French citizens between 1947 to 1962 was always a bit of a fiction, and this was made very clear when Algeria achieved independence. The new state did not want large chunks of its population to move to France, and France did not want to host a huge wave of refugees from Algeria. Therefore, te status of the Harkis was decided as part of the Évian Accords, and basically they were sold down the river. In contrast, the Pieds-noirs were allowed to settle in France with little difficulty - even though a large part of them did not have French origins either, being the descendants of Italian or Spanish immigrants who had settled in French Algeria. It's not a glorious episode in French history, and controversy has raged over the treatment of Harkis ever since. --Xuxl (talk) 13:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has an article actually titled 1951 French legislative election in Algeria. If you look on the bottom of that page as well, there's a navbox that contains links to Algerian elections in general, in there includes French elections in Algeria during the time of the French occupation. Some of them are redlinks, but for those that are not, it may have some useful starts for your research. --Jayron 32 13:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was the book "Volk ohne Raum" ever translated to English?

Was the book Volk ohne Raum ever translated to English? I found a German copy of this book for free at the Internet Archive, but A) I don't know German and B) I can't read Fraktur very well. Thus, I was wondering if there exists an English copy of this book. Futurist110 (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Worldcat claims there are a couple but looking at the entries I think their data is just wrong and those editions are in German. There are many German editions including one from the 1970s[4] and there is an ebook. I'd expect a 1970s edition to not be in Fraktur. If you can get the ebook or scan the non-Fraktur edition maybe you can drop it into some translation software. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: [5]. Available in some libraries. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 26

How do negative balances of payments work?

Sounds like a strange question, but if e.g. the US has a negative balance of payments, as it has for some time, than, as I understand it, it has been sending more dollars out than has had foreign currency in. This is what puzzles me:

How is it that the dollar appears to have largely retained a high value?
Who is buying more than they sell? Is it regular citizens? If so, where is the money they use to buy coming from? Presumably lenders, but how do they get this money?--Leon (talk) 08:53, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there is no such thing as a “negative balance of payments.” The BoP is an identity defined as zero: whatever is positive on one side (say, a trade surplus) must be negative on the other side (the investment flows deficit). There is a tiny amount of room for delays and errors (“errors and omissions”) and the imbalance may be made up by taking money from (adding money to) the reserves. This does not, however, make any BoP either positive or negative. It simply cannot exist.

In the case of the US, the current-account (mainly trade) deficit is off-set by the capital account (mainly investment) surplus: there’s as much investment capital flowing into the country as trade capital flowing out.

Those who buy more than they sell, on a national basis, are called importers. They are corporations that purchase products made outside the country for sale inside the country. After they sell the products, they use the money to buy more foreign products. If they are just getting started, or are temporarily short of cash, they may get trade financing – from the foreign seller or a bank, domestic or foreign – to cover the shortfall.

The value of the dollar is determined by currency traders; the volumes involved in mere trade and investment cannot come close to influencing the exchange rate the way that speculators are able to do so. DOR (HK) (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that most world investment is between people and/or entities that both use the same money? What margin do the biggest currency traders use? And currency being the biggest market in the world (except derivatives by nominal value?) is why anyone can get 100+ times the leverage the US allows for stocks? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the way to think of it. Let's make things REALLY simple, but reducing it to a country, Foobaristan, that produces 100 widgets in 1 year. There's only 1 other country in the world, let's call it Whateverland, and let's say that Whateverland produces 100 dohickeys in one year. Let's say that both widgets and dohickeys sell for $1 each. If Foobaristan sells 50 widgets to Whateverland, it has sold $50 of goods as exports. If Whateverland sells only 40 dohickeys to Foobaristan, it has sold $40 of goods as exports. The result is now that Whateverland has a $10 trade deficit. It started the day with $100 of value (100 dohickeys worth $1 each) and it ended the day with $100 of value (60 dohickeys in the warehouse worth $1 each, and $40 cash in the bank). But it has $40 in cash, while Foobaristan, by the same math, now has $50 dollars in cash. That means that the trade deficit has transferred $10 of cash outside of Whateverland to Foobaristan. We could also say that Foobaristan has a $10 trade surplus. This same math applies as we get more goods and countries, but the calculations don't change. Either your country sends cash to other countries (a trade deficit) or your country gets more cash flowing in from other countries (a trade surplus). --Jayron 32 16:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But how can that be sustained? Surely money runs out?

As for Forex markets; presumably the demand for particular currencies hinges on something, but what?--Leon (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Brexit Date

What has to happen in practice to change British law so that the legal exit date+time is no longer the current date (Friday 29 March 2019 at 23.00 hours, now less than 4 days away) to one one of the apparent EU-agreed dates (12 April if there is no Withdrawal agreement (as seems likely) or 22 May if there is one), and who might prevent such a change in practice?

Almost everybody seems to take it for granted that the change will happen so it's difficult to find answers to this question online. The law says that a Minister of the Crown may change the date by regulation to bring it into line with with a different EU date that is consistent with Article 50 (3) (Article 50, subsection 3). This may seem straightforward, but I notice several possible problems that are liable to be exploited by those who favour a Hard Brexit as soon as possible (meaning next Friday if possible), to avoid the risk of a long delay that might result in Brexit being cancelled, and/or the risk of an agreement that they do not see as a proper Brexit (including the agreement currently on offer).

(1) First I'm not sure that such an EU date actually exists yet in law,
- (1a) firstly because I haven't seen any clear evidence that Britain has formally agreed to the EU offer (and British agreement is required under Article 50 (3)), nor is it clear that Britain will formally agree (partly because Theresa May may prefer a Hard Brexit if her deal fails to get the support of Parliament, as until recently she has repeatedly said that the UK will leave on March 29, and that No Deal is better than a bad deal, especially as she can't trust a mostly Remainer Parliament to deliver a delayed Brexit, etc)
- and (1b) secondly because the EU gave the UK a week to accept the agreement (or not), and it's unclear when that week is up. Without such a properly agreed EU date, British law seemingly can't be changed in the less than 4 days available (as this would require an amendment by Parliament (Commons and Lords), which Hard Brexiteers would filibuster).

(2) Assuming there is a valid EU date available, I'm still unclear under what circumstances a Minister of the Crown can amend the law 'by regulation' -
- (2a) In other words I expect that this requires the approval of something like the PM and/or the Cabinet, and it may also require the Attorney General to advise that the change is legal in his opinion.
- (2b) I also assume, perhaps mistakenly, that Parliament (which, as already mentioned, doesn't have time to reword the law in 4 days, because of things like filibusters) can't force such a change on a reluctant Government except by voting no confidence, and then getting a new PM in the time available.

(3) There may also be other possible complications of which I'm unaware.

Clarifications on the above 5 points (1a, 1b, 2a, 2b, and 3) would be appreciated (ideally supported by reliable sources if possible).
Thanks in advance for your help, Tlhslobus (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they're mostly remainer what's stopping them from just no confidencing her out? Why'd that fail the last time? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other members of her party like being in power, and aren't looking forward to destroying themselves over the issue. A referendum on May in Parliament would be a referendum on the entire Tory party, and the party doesn't particularly want to destroy it's own chances at retaining a majority in the next general election. May herself only came to power as the result of an internal party election following the resignation of David Cameron, and I'm not sure the party can survive two mid-election leadership shuffles. May was basically elected to do one job, manage Brexit, and she's going to probably be allowed to see it through to the end, whatever that turns out to be. There's no real desire inside the Conservative Party to undergo another leadership change, and a General Election right now also doesn't serve their interests; the ability to call snap elections was curtailed by Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 and needs 2/3rds of the votes to call one. There aren't 2/3rds of the MPs that want to do that, whatever they think of May they are kinda stuck with her till the Brexit thing is over. Thankfully, with Jeremy Corbyn and the recent problems with Labour's image, they seem to be doing themselves no particular favors for the next election either. It's a bit messy right now all over the place. --Jayron 32 13:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should perhaps have said 'the probably mostly still secretly Remainer Parliament', since most of the formerly public Remainers are now publicly in favour of a soft Brexit. That seemingly may include May herself, although her conversion is probably more sincere than most because she wants to go down in history as the PM who delivered Brexit (albeit seemingly preferably a soft Brexit, if possible) rather than as an insignificant PM (or the incompetent who failed to deliver Brexit). That's why she just might go for a surprise NO Deal Brexit this Friday if she thinks she can get away with it more easily then than 2 weeks later (when she won't have the advantages of surprise, and may no longer even be PM). That possibly unfounded concern is a large part of what has motivated my question (tho I'm also concerned about other possible ways, if any, in which other Brexiteers might possibly manage this even without her support, such as the Attorney General, who has seemingly already sabotaged May once before, discovering near the last minute legal problems preventing the date being changed, etc). But nobody (except me, and I'm a nobody) seems to be discussing this kind of possibility online. Indeed there's so little interest that I can't rule out the possibility that the date in British law has already been changed to April 12, but that we haven't been told this loudly enough to notice it, and thus haven't yet updated Wikipedia accordingly. But I tend to suspect the exact opposite may be the case - that silence on the issue is to make it easier to prevent unsuspecting Remainers and Soft Brexiteers from stopping a surprise No Deal Brexit. Of course it could also be that this is been ignored because it really is a non-issue, but I don't have enough info about the relevant mechanisms to be confidant that this is the case. As for why she hasn't been removed already, that's an interesting but separate issue that seems of little or no relevance to whether we might get a surprise No Deal on Friday (unless May can be replaced in the next 3 days (minus about 2 hours), which I assume is extremely unlikely, and quite likely impossible unless she has a heart attack or stroke or whatever). Tlhslobus (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, this Daily Express item goes some way towards answering my question, but not entirely:

(00.01am, Wednesday)

... Meanwhile Brexiteer MPs led by Sir Bill Cash have written to Mrs May warning of their "serious legal objections" to her decision to delay Article 50, and hence Brexit, beyond March 29. And in a further blow to the PM, Brexiteer Sir Christopher Chope has even suggested Tory MPs could back a Labour motion of no confidence in the Prime Minister should one be tabled.

8.29pm update (Tuesday): Francois claims May will force third vote on Brexit deal on Thursday

... Mr Francois said he believed the Prime Minister was preparing to table her Withdrawal Agreement for a third meaningful vote at 5pm on Thursday, because the statutory instrument to change the date of Brexit leaves open the possibility of EU withdrawal taking place on May 22.

The piece of secondary legislation, which will come before the Commons on Wednesday, replaces the scheduled date of March 29 with May 22, if Mrs May has got her deal, or April 12 if she has failed.

Mr Francois said: ”The whole thing has been deliberately written to facilitate MV3 on Thursday or Friday. I’m pretty sure they are lining us up for MV3 on Thursday."

6.08pm update (Tuesday): Government "confident" legal interpretation is correct

The Government is confident a proposed law change altering the Brexit date is "legally correct" in response to concerns raised by lawyers.

Ministers were pressed over the legality of the statutory instrument (SI) to change the exit day of the UK's withdrawal from the EU by Lord Pannick, who successfully led the Supreme Court Article 50 case against the Government.

Seeking assurances from the Government at Westminster after it emerged five Tory MPs, including Sir Bill Cash, had written to Mrs May about the issue, the independent crossbencher warned that adopting an invalid piece of secondary legislation on such a critical matter would be "a complete and absolute disaster".

The concern centres on the SI, due to be debated by peers and MPs on Wednesday, containing two alternative exit days.

Conservative leader in the Lords Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, who sits in the Cabinet, said: "We are confident that the instrument is legally correct."

So assuming they do table the secondary legislation later today (Wednesday) there may (or may not) be issues both of Brexiteer filibustering and of legality, with (seemingly Brexiteer) Speaker John Bercow and (seemingly Brexiteer) Attorney General Geoffrey Cox possibly having the opportunity to put spanners in the works, and with even the (seemingly Remainer) legal expert Lord Pannick clearly worried about the legality (which doesn't surprise me - the primary legislation mentions replacing one date with another, and says nothing about replacing it with two possible dates, and indeed a date that complies with Article 50(3), which makes no mention of having two possible extension dates, so arguably this might (or might not) need new primary legislation, a lengthy process for which there is no time left). Proposing incorrect legislation (if it is indeed incorrect) can be presented as just an innocent cock-up, even if it may really be yet another clever device for running down the clock. Presumably we'll know a lot more about this by this evening (so I guess I'll now perhaps just have to wait at least until then before deciding whether or not to buy more contingency supplies in case of shortages resulting from a surprise No Deal Brexit and/or from panic-buying caused by the prospect thereof). Tlhslobus (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Venice glass works move to Murano

Toward the end of the 13th century (abt 1291), the center of the Venetian glass industry moved to Murano, an offshore island in Venice. How many glass workers went to Murano when this move happened? Is there any records of the amount of men that went to Murano from Venice? --Christie the puppy lover (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Were there any aircraft in the Qing Empire?

What was the earliest disbanding country-form of government* that had an air force? *What do you call X's that aren't ended by things like Queen Victoria death, Obama to Trump, Buchanan to Lincoln, First Party System to Second but end at bigger changes like empire to something else, Confederate States of America to part of USA, absolute monarch to constitutional, Fourth French Republic to Fifth, secular republic to theocracy, Gorbachev to Yeltsin, Czechoslovak split, Weimar to Nazi, West Germany to Unified? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your second question, the Imperial Russian Air Service is probably a decent bet. To answer your third, the word you're groping for is revolution. Henry ^Flower 21:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well the first country to disband that had nukes was USSR. The first government to disband after having it was Truman or the Democrats but that's not very interesting, governments change all the time in democracies. What do you call a "country-form of government"? If anything was invented in 1788 France it'd be broken English to call the First French Monarchy the first revolution that had the invention to disband. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And didn't Czechoslovakia split fairly civilly on undisputed borders, just negotiating dividing the pie? Yet that country stopped existing and some countries that had violent revolutions like Rwanda are still here. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]