Humanities desk
< April 13	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 15 >

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.

April 14[edit]

Mary E. Hart[edit]

I tried asking this at Talk:Pacific Coast Women's Press Association, but it's been roughly a week without an answer, so I thought I'd try here.

I'm wondering whether there were two well-known people named Mary E. Hart and https://holabirdamericana.wordpress.com/2013/03/25/mary-e-hart-and-m-e-harts-coins-of-the-golden-west-by-william-d-hyder/ conflates them, or whether there was only one and this article [that is, Pacific Coast Women's Press Association] has her death date (and possibly her birth date) wrong. Got interested because of the photo I've thumbed here, which I'm trying to give appropriate categories on Commons. - Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

William D. Hyder, the author of the holabirdamericana article does not seem an unreliable source: books. He cites the Los Angeles Times, March 10, 1921, p. 115 for is own reference. By some trick of the attention I first memorized 1916 as Hyder's date given for Mary E. Hart death but 1916 was the referred date of losing track of the M.E. Hart Company instead. Maybe were you following a similar line of thought as I did, Hyder seems to be trying to come near proving an opinion that the company was the lady, but he may be underestimating things like the generation gap (Charbneau being born in 1883). An easier to follow narrative of W.D. Hyder's research is to be found in this article, under "candidate #2". --Askedonty (talk) 13:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Jmabel | Talk 00:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The source of 6 million as the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust[edit]

I know that the number of Jews murdered in the Holocaust is 6 million, and that the number of Jewish children is 1.5 million. What is the original source of these numbers? 89.138.131.240 (talk) 05:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is no single wartime document that serves as the direct source for these numbers. While the Nazis initially kept comprehensive records of the killings, in the final years of the war this record-keeping broke down, and much of the existing documentation was deliberately destroyed. In order to estimate the death toll, scholars rely on a variety of different sources, including census records, archives, and postwar investigations. You can find more information here: [1] CataracticPlanets (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question is, where did the number six million originate and how did it become widely accepted as the number of Jews murdered?--Wehwalt (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be absolutely clear, it's not widely accepted as the number, it's widely accepted as the best approximate estimate that can be made of the number, pending further evidence and re-analyses. The actual number can probably never be known, given that there are no comprehensive records either of the murders (and other deaths resulting indirectly from their perpetration), or of the populations from whom the victims came, or of the numbers of survivors from those populations. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.122.2.132 (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For our overview, see The_Holocaust#Death_toll. Henry ^Flower 08:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'The number seems to have first been mentioned by Dr. Wilhelm Hoettl, an Austrian-born official in the Third Reich and a trained historian who served in a number of senior positions in the SS... he described a conversation he had had with Eichmann, the SS official who had principal responsibility for the logistics of the Jewish genocide, in Budapest in August 1944. In the 1961 testimony, Hoettl recalled how “Eichmann … told me that, according to his information, some 6,000,000 Jews had perished until then -- 4,000,000 in extermination camps and the remaining 2,000,000 through shooting by the Operations Units and other causes, such as disease, etc”'. From Holocaust Facts: Where Does the Figure of 6 Million Victims Come From?, Haaretz, January 2019. Alansplodge (talk) 10:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage officiants in the United States/Marriage locations in the United States[edit]

Following a question on marriages that I asked her last month, some more questions came into my mind:

1. How and why did it become common in the United States for non-religious or political figures (meaning, for lack of a better term, "an average Joe") to officiate marriages? And why hasn't similar practices caught on in most of the world? Asking because in most of the world, usually only authorized people (usually government officials or religious leaders) are allowed to officiate weddings, unlike in the US where, depending on the state, practically anyone can officiate a legally-binding wedding.

2. How and why did it become common in the United States to hold wedding ceremonies in pretty much any kind of place? And how come similar leniency in the kinds of permitted event venues is more uncommon outside the US? Given that in most of the world, legally-binding weddings tend to only be allowed to take place either at a government office, a place of worship, or an event hall, unlike in the US where there have been cases of getting married in places like backyards/homes/restaurants/farms and so on.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it has its roots in separation of church and state. US law used English law as a starting point, and over here, the Church of England as the established church had a monopoly on the registration of marriages until the Marriage Act 1836, a system which the newly independent colonists were determined to avoid. Can't find a reference to support that at the moment though. Alansplodge (talk) 13:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, while separation of church and state (and indeed secularism) has become a fairly common concept in much of the world, it seems that the things I mentioned above are a predominantly US-centric phenomenon. Indeed, in most of Europe, the only legally-binding marriages are those performed at a government office, and the "DIY wedding" style that is commonly seen in the US appears to be uncommon if not virtually non-existent outside of Scotland (where such weddings are legal); similar laws are also in place in other parts of the world. We do have an article on Humanist celebrant, which seems to partly discuss "Humanist weddings" (which are legal in only a handful of countries in the world), and even then, I'm not sure if the "DIY wedding" counts as a humanist one. So why haven't such practices caught on in the rest of the world, even in secular societies? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take it from the other side. As an American the idea that the government can tell me where I can or can't get married seems hideously controlling. It reeks of an inappropriate invasion of my personal life. It runs counter to the very ideal of personal liberty. As for officiants, as long as the proper paperwork is filled out and duly processed (which would include formal notarization, which is easy to achieve), why would anyone care if I have a priest officiate or get my DM from my D&D group to do it? --Khajidha (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMO the OP is overplaying the US-centric bit. In Malaysia for example, it's possible for some religious officials to officiate marriages. However given the nature of religious freedom in Malaysia and other factors it's limited and there's no also no concept of an independent celebrant. So a lot of marriages happen at the registry office. [2] [3] But this doesn't mean the registry office part is seen as the cornerstone of the marriage. I mean sure it's an important part of the marriage and the only way to make it official but I think it's often also just seen as part of getting the bureaucratic paperwork done to make it official. Plenty of weddings happen after the official recognition in a variety of manners and culturally these are often seen as the most important part and indication the couple are actually married. Note that as somewhat illustrated by the Quaker example below, the idea of having someone officiate a wedding is hardly a universal concept anyway. AFAIK, in traditional Chinese marriages it often doesn't really exist. There are a variety of customs which symbolise the marriage such as Chinese tea culture#Tea drinking customs [4], but the idea of having some person officiate just isn't part of it. While modern customs are often influenced by Western traditions and may include things like rings, I'm not sure if having a celebrant or officiant is a key part for many non religious Chinese weddings happening outside the West (e.g. China, Taiwan, HK, Singapore, Malaysia). For Chinese Christians and similar, it obviously may be. Nil Einne (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding who can be a marriage officiate, see this link https://www.usmarriagelaws.com/marriage-license/wedding-officiants-requirements.shtml, which gives answers for each of the 50 states; glancing through it, it appears that most states require a non-governmenal marriage officiate to be a minister or priest or affiliated with a religious organization. At the top of that page it says Some states have laws that permit other persons to apply for authority to perform marriage ceremonies. For example, California law permits anyone to apply for permission to become a Deputy Commissioner of Marriages — the grant of authority is valid for one day — and thus officiate at the wedding of family or friends on that one day. [bolding added by me]. This fits with what I recall: Some secular humanist organizations have sued some states to allow non-clergy officiates or have lobbied to change the law in order to permit it. Another list is here https://www.thespruce.com/recognized-marriage-officiants-2300735 — this says that in Colorado Couples themselves may solemnize their own marriage. Loraof (talk) 15:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our marriage officiant article lists the countries where these practices occur: Australia, Canada, Iceland, Ireland, New Zealand, Norway, UK (Scotland only), and USA (some states only). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Loraof, the link you gave doesn't really give the full picture, though. For example, for my state (North Carolina) it says "Any ordained minister of any faith who is authorized to perform marriages by his church may do so." But, it is exceptionally easy to become ordained. NC law does not specify a list of faiths recognized for this purpose. Here's a website where basically anyone can become an "ordained minister": https://www.oministry.com/ordained-marriage-laws/north-carolina/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwtMvlBRDmARIsAEoQ8zTXjrvT2MxloiT-t8dtBEh2OfivW1JqB6hoXEkSezXtYUWm6st_juoaAgshEALw_wcB A friend of mine has done this in the past and officiated at another friend's wedding here in NC. Really, the important part is the second sentence from the NC listing at your link: "ministers must complete the marriage license and return it to the register of deeds who issued it." It's the filing of the form with the register of deeds that really matters.--Khajidha (talk) 19:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your third sentence, "But, it is exceptionally easy to become ordained." is, I think, the important one. As I discussed in the previous question, it's dead simple to arrange for a humanist officiant to solemnize your wedding in Canada - just as easy as it is in the US. The tricky part is in becoming a registered officiant. The quickest course of action I found will take me a year plus to achieve (there are quicker ways, but there are substantial costs), whereas in many US states, the entire thing takes literally seconds online. It's somewhat ironic that a country so leery of atheists and agnostics should be this way; it's like, "We don't care if you treat your religion as a joke - so long as you have one!" kind of mentality. Matt Deres (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" it's like, "We don't care if you treat your religion as a joke - so long as you have one!" kind of mentality." Congratulations, you have just successfully summed up the collective American attitude to religion.--Khajidha (talk) 21:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is something effectively forced by the First Amendment via the courts. First Amendment jurisprudence says as long as you meet a few basic tests, a government can't say your religion "isn't a real religion" and deny you a benefit available to other religions. Hence, you get things like John Oliver creating a "real" "fake" church as a publicity stunt. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, all of the more well-established religions are afraid that if they push to exclude these new faiths that the laws may eventually be used against them as well. A Baptist might think that a humanist wedding isn't "real" but won't push to legislate against it because a Catholic might later move to exclude Baptists as well. They couldn't even fall back on the idea of "only Christian weddings", because they would then have to deal with Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Christian Scientists, Messianic Jews, etc that the Baptists (and Catholics, Presbyterians, Anglicans, etc) might exclude but are large enough to cause problems with the implementation of such a policy. Heck, some might not even consider other branches of their own sect to be "Christian". --Khajidha (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In NZ it's a little different. I don't think it necessarily takes a year to become an independent celebrant nor does it cost a great deal. (Although it's not free. It's expected you can make up for the costs by charging a reasonable fee for your services if you wish.) But still there's a difference from the practice from a number of US states and maybe elsewhere in that it also isn't something intended for any random person. Definitely it's not something you can do just because you want to officiate the marriage of one of your friends. You're supposed to be providing a service to the community [5] [6]. Note however it isn't a rare thing either. In fact most marriages in NZ are performed by independent celebrants not religious ones nor registry offices ones, see the 2015 figures in Marriage in New Zealand#Marriage Celebrants and note also that Humanist celebrants would generally be organisational celebrants. (So those aren't all really religious either.) As mentioned in the article on marriages in NZ, NZ also has a special exception for Quakers (and only them) which allows their marriages to be performed without a celebrant [7] Nil Einne (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since I didn't see this mentioned, I thought I would. Many religious officiants will refuse to preside over the marriage ceremony of a mixed marriage. And I use the term "mixed" to mean people of different religions. My father and mother went through similar problems because my father was not Catholic while my mother was. The priest refused to marry them in the main church. They had to be married in a smaller chapel. †dismas†|^(talk) 23:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That actually touches on an interesting point which also relates to separation of church and state. In countries which still have state churches, the question arises whether and when the state church should be allowed to deny a marriage which the state itself allows. The Church of Denmark is an interesting example here since as I understand it, they're legally required to allow Same-sex marriage in Denmark in their churches. Although individual priests can refuse to perform the ceremony someone has to be found to replace them [8]. The church themselves are fine with it (although obviously not everyone in Denmark [9] [10]) but many overseas, especially US, right wing Christian commentators or groups made a fuss over it, sometimes years late, [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] but as mention in that blog, what they seem to have missed is that part of the reason this arose is because it's a state church. P.S. I'm aware of WP:ELNEVER but felt since the Youtube channel seems to really belong to a producer working for the channel, they hopefully know what they're doing and received the necessary permission to upload it to Youtube [16] [17] Nil Einne (talk) 08:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What were Vienna's ethnic and/or linguistic demographics in 1910?[edit]

What were Vienna's ethnic and/or linguistic demographics in 1910? Futurist110 (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's nice article in the German wikipedia [18]. According to that article, total population in 1910 was 2.083 million. Around 1900, 49% of the city's population was estimated to have been born outside the city. Of these, 22% came from Bohemia, Moravia and Austrian Silesia; 15% from Lower Austria; and 4% from other regions in what is now Austria. The remainder were from other regions within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. No specific word about languages spoken, but obviously, there were a lot of Czech speakers, and probably also of Hungarian and various other Slavic languages. --Xuxl (talk) 13:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.com/books?id=7c1bX3TfeLAC&pg=PA17 has an account of the evolution of size of Jewish community compared with growth of overall urban population. 2,031,498 residents of Vienna in 1910, out of whom 175,318 were Jewish. --Soman (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

here you find 1910 census data http://www.anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno-plus?aid=ost&datum=0001&pos=222 --Soman (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

What was Boston's Non-Hispanic Black percentage in 2010?[edit]

The article for Boston gives the Black percentage for its total population in 2010, but I'm not interested in the entire Black population. Rather, I am only interested in Boston's Non-Hispanic Black population (some Blacks are Hispanic--hence the article Black Hispanic and Latino Americans).

Does anyone here know what Boston's Non-Hispanic Black percentage (out of Boston's total population) was in 2010? Futurist110 (talk) 21:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in addition to asking this question about Boston, I would also like to ask this question about Suffolk County, Massachusetts. Futurist110 (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Census Bureau does not tabulate that data as you ask for. I'm not sure if there are any other sources for that information, but the Census doesn't break out non-Hispanic Black population from Hispanic Black Population separately. --Jayron 32 13:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a shame. I mean, it's possible that the Social Explorer (socialexplorer.com) would have separate US Census data for this, but one would likely have to pay money to get access to this data and I am certainly unwilling to do this. Futurist110 (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]