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 4 Information
Name for "jokey names" of fictional characters - Dickens, Thackeray, etc.
Is there a name for the kind of jokey names - Wackford Squeers, Mr Bates, Mr Mulligatawny, etc - that Dickens and Thackeray used?
DuncanHill (
talk)
01:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Baseball_Bugs -- "Autological name" or "
Aptronym" would mean names that describe the persons in question in some way. These also occur in Dickens (not always with humorous intent -- some are grim names for grim characters), but they don't seem to be what DuncanHill is asking about (names that sound funny: see
Inherently funny word but for names).
AnonMoos (
talk)
04:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Incidentally, I have read that the reason Dickens used such apparently absurd surnames, particularly for 'villains', was to lessen the likelihood of being sued for libel by real-life individuals who happened to have the same name – apparently this actually happened early in his career.
The name '
Magwitch' in Great Expectations was however a subtler variation of the real name of a family of ne'er-do-wells in Portsmouth known to Dickens from his childhood there. The family is still extant (a current friend of mine was well acquainted with them) so I will refrain from rendering the real name here. The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}
2.123.27.125 (
talk)
19:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Proportion of global Christians belonging to denominations that accept evolution?
I would like to know what percentage of Christians globally belong to denominations which accept evolution of humanity by natural selection (including "theistic evolution"). I can try to synthesize this from
List of Christian denominations by number of members and
Acceptance of evolution by religious groups, but I'd rather see a published figure somewhere. I can see a lot published about the percentage among American Christians, but this is skewed by evangelical fundamentalists in America who are out of step with the global church on this issue. I want to say: X% of global Christians belong to a church which accepts evolution. This would include all Catholics and Orthodox, all Methodists, no Southern Baptists, etc. Just how many is that?
Staecker (
talk)
14:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)reply
The "no Southern Baptist" thing is incorrect, on the face. The
Southern Baptist Convention has made statements in opposition to evolution, but it does not speak for member institutions and Southern Baptists, like all baptists, believe in such questions are a matter of individual faith, and the SBC pronouncements on such matters are non-binding on individual congregations and on members of those congregations. The autonomy of the individual church on matters of doctrine like this is paramount in the Baptist faith, and even the SBC cannot force its member churches to abide by it's own advisory statements on the matter. It may be that many Southern Baptists do, but it is incorrect to say that SBC statements establish a denomination-wide doctrine for all Southern Baptists churches in the way that other denominations do. That's not how Baptists work. --
Jayron3217:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Your criticisms of the heavy-handed nature of the recent leadership of the SBC is not without merit, but doctrinally, Baptists still believe in the autonomy of the individual church body and the revelation of the individual through a personal relationship with God. It is important to note that the SBC is not a denomination per se, in the same way that "Lutheranism" and "Catholicism" is. The SBC is still, first and foremost, an organization whose primary purpose is to fund missionary work, and they are quite free to have their own requirements for how to distribute those funds to do so. Baptists, on the individual level and on the congregational level, cannot be controlled by SBC policy or doctrine. There are no, strictly speaking, "Southern Baptist" churches. There are only Baptist churches, some of whom have a financial relationship with the SBC, and the SBC, of course, can set whatever requirements they want for that relationship. There are some of those churches that have beliefs that align well with the SBC, and those that don't. On the whole, the entire
Baptist thing is far more complex than other denominations, if only because of the diversity of expression over a rather small set of common doctrines. I can walk into any number of Baptist churches within 20 miles of my house and run into everything from those led by lesbian clergy to those who follow a much more conservative doctrine. --
Jayron3221:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)reply
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 4 Information
Name for "jokey names" of fictional characters - Dickens, Thackeray, etc.
Is there a name for the kind of jokey names - Wackford Squeers, Mr Bates, Mr Mulligatawny, etc - that Dickens and Thackeray used?
DuncanHill (
talk)
01:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Baseball_Bugs -- "Autological name" or "
Aptronym" would mean names that describe the persons in question in some way. These also occur in Dickens (not always with humorous intent -- some are grim names for grim characters), but they don't seem to be what DuncanHill is asking about (names that sound funny: see
Inherently funny word but for names).
AnonMoos (
talk)
04:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Incidentally, I have read that the reason Dickens used such apparently absurd surnames, particularly for 'villains', was to lessen the likelihood of being sued for libel by real-life individuals who happened to have the same name – apparently this actually happened early in his career.
The name '
Magwitch' in Great Expectations was however a subtler variation of the real name of a family of ne'er-do-wells in Portsmouth known to Dickens from his childhood there. The family is still extant (a current friend of mine was well acquainted with them) so I will refrain from rendering the real name here. The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195}
2.123.27.125 (
talk)
19:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Proportion of global Christians belonging to denominations that accept evolution?
I would like to know what percentage of Christians globally belong to denominations which accept evolution of humanity by natural selection (including "theistic evolution"). I can try to synthesize this from
List of Christian denominations by number of members and
Acceptance of evolution by religious groups, but I'd rather see a published figure somewhere. I can see a lot published about the percentage among American Christians, but this is skewed by evangelical fundamentalists in America who are out of step with the global church on this issue. I want to say: X% of global Christians belong to a church which accepts evolution. This would include all Catholics and Orthodox, all Methodists, no Southern Baptists, etc. Just how many is that?
Staecker (
talk)
14:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)reply
The "no Southern Baptist" thing is incorrect, on the face. The
Southern Baptist Convention has made statements in opposition to evolution, but it does not speak for member institutions and Southern Baptists, like all baptists, believe in such questions are a matter of individual faith, and the SBC pronouncements on such matters are non-binding on individual congregations and on members of those congregations. The autonomy of the individual church on matters of doctrine like this is paramount in the Baptist faith, and even the SBC cannot force its member churches to abide by it's own advisory statements on the matter. It may be that many Southern Baptists do, but it is incorrect to say that SBC statements establish a denomination-wide doctrine for all Southern Baptists churches in the way that other denominations do. That's not how Baptists work. --
Jayron3217:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Your criticisms of the heavy-handed nature of the recent leadership of the SBC is not without merit, but doctrinally, Baptists still believe in the autonomy of the individual church body and the revelation of the individual through a personal relationship with God. It is important to note that the SBC is not a denomination per se, in the same way that "Lutheranism" and "Catholicism" is. The SBC is still, first and foremost, an organization whose primary purpose is to fund missionary work, and they are quite free to have their own requirements for how to distribute those funds to do so. Baptists, on the individual level and on the congregational level, cannot be controlled by SBC policy or doctrine. There are no, strictly speaking, "Southern Baptist" churches. There are only Baptist churches, some of whom have a financial relationship with the SBC, and the SBC, of course, can set whatever requirements they want for that relationship. There are some of those churches that have beliefs that align well with the SBC, and those that don't. On the whole, the entire
Baptist thing is far more complex than other denominations, if only because of the diversity of expression over a rather small set of common doctrines. I can walk into any number of Baptist churches within 20 miles of my house and run into everything from those led by lesbian clergy to those who follow a much more conservative doctrine. --
Jayron3221:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)reply