Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 May 21

= May 21 =

Snow White's characteristics
Snow White is often described as having black hair, light-colored skin like snow (hence snow white), and red lips; and the story supposedly takes place in Germany. How common is black hair in Germany? I thought that the farther north you go, you would see lighter and lighter features. Also, how can a person have black hair (not albino) and snow-white skin (possibly albino)? What's with the black hair? I would have thought that a girl from East Asia with black hair and a powdered face would have those features, but I can't imagine a Northern European having those features. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) It's a work of fiction, so it is not beholden to actual rules; your desire for it to be other than it is does not change its nature, Snow White is characterized the way she is even if you wish she hadn't been. Your imagination, or lack thereof, doesn't change anything about the already-written story.  2) This table can be used to find distributions of hair and eye colors in the Germanophone world (Germany, Switzerland, Austria).  Black is relatively rare, but not entirely unknown, and regardless, it wouldn't actually change the actual way Snow White was actually described.  Your incredulity doesn't change it.  -- Jayron 32 04:24, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If black hair is relatively rare, then has anybody written anything about the symbolism of the physical characteristics? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Many people have. Maybe something there can provide you wish some additional reading.  -- Jayron 32 04:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Um... I'm not sure if you read that search result, but that search result doesn't show anything pertinent to Snow White's snow-white skin color. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The first item on Jayron's google search, at least for me, is this: which gives an explanation for the color scheme. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Besides that one, this and this and this and dozens more from the same. I'm not sure 50.4 wants additional reading so much as he wants to argue with reality.  -- Jayron 32 05:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You are not answering this question clearly or directly. This is not productive. Hatting this. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 17:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And I un-hatted it. It's evident you're not reading the links you've been provided. And you don't own the thread. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What the OP wants to hear is that the Disney version is only b---. Well ? --Askedonty (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you feel the references don't answer the question, please explain why and we can offer further help. The references seem to be fairly simple English, so it's resonable to expect you can read and understand them. If you are unable to read or understand them for whatever reason, the reference desk isn't the place for you so you should stop hanging around. This is not Yahoo Answers or even Stack Exchange. People will summarise or quote references when they are very long and the answer is in a small part, or the reference may be difficult to access (e.g. behind paywall or the OP is known to have access issues because of where they live) but since this is a reference desk, links to references with answers is a completely acceptable answer. If you don't like that the solution is for you to find a place more suited for you, not for you to hat any answer which doesn't fit your preferred form. Nil Einne (talk) 05:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 50.4 might find this item educational: ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In some parts of Ireland, the combination of black hair and pale skin was apparently traditionally considered undesirable... AnonMoos (talk) 07:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Although that's a VERY common Irish trait, see Black Irish: "a reference to a dark-haired phenotype appearing in people of Irish origin. However, dark hair in people of Irish descent is common, although darker skin complexions appear less frequently". Alansplodge (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I wonder how the Black Irish themselves feel about being "a reference". —Tamfang (talk) 02:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * As for pale skin, note that a lack of exposure to sunlight can result in that, for people of northern European ancestry. That is, they don't have any Sun tanning.  This could happen from staying (or being locked) inside, or possibly from living in a forest where little sunlight reaches the ground.  This feature was formerly seen as desirable, since it implies a rich woman who doesn't need to work outside.  However, note that the trait can remain an ideal, even when decoupled from this justification, much as a woman with large breasts may attract men, since it's originally a sign of fertility, even if those men aren't interested in having kids.  Indeed the phrases "fair maiden" and "Who's the fairest of them all ?" both originally referenced light skin color.


 * Further, somebody with dark hair would lack sun bleaching of their hair, under similar circumstances. StuRat (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2017 (UTCz

Anywhere in Europe someone can have black hair and light skin. It's not weird. Very many Germans have dark hair. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

military order bearing signature
I'm watching Valkyrie (film) and it's making a big deal out of the conspirators tricking Hilter to personally sign the doctored Operation Valkyrie order.

I was wondering would a military order during WWII passing down the chain of command actually bear the actual signature? The original few copies could be manually signed, but I don't see any way to duplicate a signature with WWII-era technology.

Looking at photocopier the technology wasn't available back in WWII. And if I'm not mistaken most orders in WWII were sent over the telegraph, so only text could be transmitted. Scala Cats (talk) 04:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Mimeograph and Spirit duplicator machines would have been widely available at the time, and had been for decades. No idea if they were used as you indicate, but your presumption that since photocopiers didn't exist, reliable duplication methods also weren't, doesn't bear out.  Duplication machines did exist. -- Jayron 32 05:14, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My bad, didn't know about those.
 * Still, my question stands, were those duplication methods used on military orders during WWII (for all sides)? Scala Cats (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I found an image of Führer's directive 21 (the order for Operation Barbarossa), which Adolf has signed on the second page. The accompanying text says that it was one of nine signed copies. This makes sense, as the directive could be issued to the various army group commanders, who would then draw up their own orders for their corps and divisional commanders and so on down the pecking order. I couldn't find any detailed description of the system, but it seems logical to me. Alansplodge (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In the US military in WW2 the mimeograph was widely used for "cutting orders." See . A clerk used a typewriter set to the stencil position to type a mimeograph stencil with the text. In the mimeograph position, the ribbon was moved out of the way so the key hit the stencil hard enough to cause it to allow ink to flow through. The stencil was placed on the rotary mimeo machine and copes were made, from one to several thousand. That way redundancy was allowed with copies for a soldier, his commander, people required to furnish transportation or equipment, headquarters etc. From start to finish a short document could be reproduced in a few copies in three minutes or so. I used mimeo for several years early in my career. It would not include an image of a signature, but it was possible to splice in images by using other methods to produce an image and literally cutting out a space for the image and taping it into the master. If the boss was present, he could write his signature on the stencil so that it printed, just as we could draw diagrams on it.To copy a document with a signature photostats could be used. This was an early 20th century technology which used photographic paper in a big copy camera with attached processing trays. It only took a few minutes. It was great for a few copies but not practical for hundreds or thousands because of the cost and time. A black and white photo of a document could be taken to a printer where it was electrochemically made into a printing plate and thousands of copies could be made in a few hours (like a newspaper). Edison (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Meixi Archways
I need help finding better more reliable alternatives to these sources (preferably printed and in English). The second one seems to be blacklisted by Wikipedia so you will need to google it.

--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * If you're having trouble finding reliable English sources, then I can take a look through Chinese language results and translate them for you. I did come across this though. Alcherin (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Is the wedding ceremony or the marriage license proof of marriage?
First of all, what is the difference between the marriage license and the wedding ceremony? Which one determines that one is married? In a graduation ceremony, the diploma is awarded on the ceremony, so the ceremony marks the day of graduation. However, does the same apply to marriages too? In other words, which one - wedding ceremony or marriage license - marks the day of marriage? Do the marriage license and wedding ceremony occur on the same day? Does a person need a wedding ceremony if the person already has a marriage license? I know it seems like a lot of questions, but all these questions are concerned with the difference between the wedding ceremony and the marriage license. If this is an overly broad question that cannot be answered on the Reference Desk, then please directly say so; and I will narrow down the scope to a specific country. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In the typical U.S. state, you apply for and instantly receive a marriage license; this allows you to get married within a certain number of days, which probably varies by state but could be, say, 30 days or 60 days. Then within that time frame you get married at either a judge's chambers or elsewhere, and you are married from that moment onward. Someone (either the married couple or the one who conducted the ceremony—I can't recall which) informs the county clerk's office that the marriage took place on a certain date, and the clerk's office (perhaps with a slight time lag) issues a marriage certificate to you stating what date you got married.
 * So the marriage license is permission to marry, while the marriage certificate is proof that you did get married. I'd be surprised if any state deviates in any substantive way from this description. I don't know about outside the US. Loraof (talk) 20:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 30 to 60 days? If anyone wants to get married in the States, then I presume that one initiates engagement at one point. Then, just before the intended wedding day, one applies for a marriage license. If one applies for a license right after the engagement, then one has only 30-60 days to prepare for a wedding. Then, the wedding day happens, and then the marriage certificate is sent. Then, the official day of marriage is the wedding day or the marriage certificate issuing day? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The official day of marriage is the wedding day. Loraof (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * By the way, getting the mariage license is just a formality in the vast majority of cases. Planning for the wedding often begins long before that step, which is often left to the last week before the ceremony. So a 30 to 60 day window is plenty enough. --Xuxl (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In the United States, is marriage in the judge's chambers a wedding ceremony, or is it when the judge just hands you your marriage certificate, declaring that you are married? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Getting married in the judge's chambers is just like getting married anywhere else—the judge reads certain things, though not as much as a religious leader would read during a church marriage ceremony. Some people might say that what the judge does is too short to be called a wedding or a ceremony, while others would still use those terms. In any event, what happens in the judge's chambers is that he makes you a married couple. When you receive the marriage certificate, a little later, is irrelevant. Loraof (talk) 22:48, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm a justice of the peace in Vermont, and authorized to solemnize marriages here. The couple arranges with a person authorized to solemnize marriages (the officiant) to conduct the ceremony. The officiant could be a religious leader, a judge, a justice of the peace, etc. The couple brings the marriage license to the ceremony. The couple is married as soon as the ceremony is complete. Right after the ceremony the officiant  fills out the blanks on the license, including the date of the ceremony, and signs it. Then the officiant returns it to the town clerk who issued the license. After enough time has gone by for the certificate to be copied into the official records, the couple may request (for a fee) a certified copy of the marriage certificate. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:00, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * That is also the basic pattern in the UK - the licence permits marriage, and the certificate is proof that it actually happened. You have to go through a ceremony (either civil or religious), and then sign the register, to qualify for the certificate. In France, marriage is a civil matter - you get married at the local mairie and obtain the necessary certificate there. Religious marriage is optional, and has no legal standing. Wymspen (talk) 20:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * There's no such thing as a marriage licence in Australia. Two people who wish to marry (and that means a man and a woman, until we enter the 21st century and permit same-sex marriage) simply arrange with the priest/minister or civil marriage celebrant to have a wedding, and the certificate is issued by the celebrant at the conclusion of the ceremony and handed to the happy couple.  Simples.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Some branches of Quakerism marry without registering their marriage with the government. This practice dates back to Quakerism's earliest days. See Quaker wedding. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * In about 15 U.S. states, common law marriages are recognized, and they, of course, have no licences. Or ceremonies. - Nunh-huh


 * When I got married in Ontario, Canada, the "Marriage Licence and Certificate" were one piece of paper with that title. The bottom part, the certificate, was completed at the ceremony and was the proof of marriage.  Once the marriage was recorded we could also order wallet-card certificates from the government. --69.159.60.50 (talk) 00:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Marriage process in modern China, Japan, and the Koreas
I should have mentioned this beforehand. What is the process for marriage in those countries? I've heard that people just apply for a marriage license and hold a wedding banquet. Do they issue a marriage certificate too? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The U.S. Embassy in Seoul describes the South Korean marriage process here. It does involve a Certificate of Marriage Registration (수리증명서, soo-ree jeung-myung-suh). See also marriage in South Korea (articles needs a lot of work). Neutralitytalk 03:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * In China the general process is submitting an application to marry, getting a health check, then getting the marriage registered (and receiving a certificate to prove it). The application and registration steps are both done at the government marriage registration office. The wedding banquet is cultural and can be held before, on the same day, or some time after the actual registration. For most people there is no separate "marriage licence" step. Wikitravel weirdly has an article on getting married in China: --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

In Britain a church wedding does not normally require a licence. In a previous discussion 78.146 gave an insight into Jewish weddings:
 * In England, the Church of England, being the established church, does not require a licence but does need the reading of Banns of marriage which predate the licence system by many centuries. I believe that other churches require the civil niceties. Alansplodge (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Following up this thesis I examined the books in my own library. I soon lighted on a copy of Jewish Customs and Ceremonies by Ben M Edidin (New York, 1941).   On page 69 there is a drawing of a scroll.   The text above and below discusses the hupah.   I therefore assumed this was a drawing of a hupah.   However, on further investigation I found on page 67 the statement that the hupah is a canopy.   It was only when I reached page 70 that I found out that the  marriage contract is called ketubah.   At this point I suspected that the drawing was of a marriage contract, and deciphering the Hebrew letters at the top it was indeed 'KTUBH' ... Even in the simple example cited above there's room for further confusion.   Another book describes the formal agreement, (which is a written contract), as 'tenaim (Hebrew for 'betrothal terms').'   The ketubah is the marriage certificate.   Both works agree that  this document is written in Aramaic and sets out the husband's obligations to his wife. So we have to distinguish between pre - and post - nuptial agreements, contracts and certificates - and this is a simple example!"