The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Humanities desk
< March 24	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 26 >

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.

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]

In many U.S. states, it is sufficient to take an online certification course. My wife did so to marry two of her co-workers. I believe she did so through the Universal Life Church. See here for other ways to do so in the U.S. --Jayron 32 12:33, 28 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: [1]. 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, the 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]

Thanks for this information. That said, though, it's really sad that a lot of harkis were slaughtered after the French left Algeria. One would think that if the Algerians would have wanted the harkis to remain in Algeria, then they would have at least treated them well. Futurist110 (talk) 22:28, 30 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]

Thanks for this tip. I'll make sure to check it out. Futurist110 (talk) 22:28, 30 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[2] 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]

Do these 1970s German editions actually have an ebook, though? Futurist110 (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: [3]. Available in some libraries. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That said, though, I wonder if I could read an English version of this book anywhere for free online. Futurist110 (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]