Humanities desk
< February 28	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 2 >

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 1

ethnic-minority majority place in UK

Who are the ethnic minority-majority in the following places: Batley Carr, Carpenter's Estate, London; Lockwood, Rusholme, and Springfield?--Donmust90 (talk) 03:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90[reply]

You'll need to be more specific than that. Batley Carr is in Kirklees council area. I presume you're not trying to link it with Carpenter's Estate, London, as the semi-colon will suggest. There are more than one Lockwoods, Rusholmes and Springfields in the UK, that's if you're talking about the UK. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Start with this interactive map: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/may/19/ethnic-breakdown-england-wales Then when you find places of interest, Google the local authority and ethnicity and ward, and you will find stats for smaller local areas. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or, go here http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/, put in the name of an area, click Ward, and search. Click on Census, then on 2001 Census: Census Area Statistics, then come down the list to Ethnic Group, and you will get all the ethnic groups. 2001 data. 2011 Census hasn't yet been put up in such a usable format. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Imran Khan chancellor Univ. of Bradford pakistani population

Why was Imran Khan made as a Chancellor of University of Bradford? Was it for the Pakistani population?--Donmust90 (talk) 03:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)Donmust90 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donmust90 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the reference from the Wikipedia article University of Bradford. You can read it yourself and arrive at your own conclusions. My understanding about the role of Chancellor in a British University is that the role is not a full-time job as it usually is in American Universities: In Britain the office holder's main responsibilities are in public relations; they don't have much to do with the day-to-day operations of the University; Imran has certainly been very active in other roles while serving as chancellor. I know, for example, that Brian May of the rock band Queen is Chancellor of Liverpool John Moores University and has been since 2007, but his main role is to hand out degrees at graduation and appear at a few public engagements every year. I suspect that Imran Khan's role at Bradford is similar. --Jayron32 04:10, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as mentioned in our article Chancellor (education), the role of chancellor is generally titular in most commonwealth countries although theymmay be part of the governing body. The vice chancellor is the chief executive in charge of day to day operations. Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this is a loaded question, which is suggesting an answer. If the OP had an interest why Imran Khan was appointed, and no interest in debate, he would just have asked about the process. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roman(?) Catholic Church

When and where I was growing up it was always called the ROMAN Catholic Church. Our article says "The Catholic Church, also known as the Roman Catholic Church..." A newly registered editor, Marc Mora, today changed it to "The Roman Catholic Church, also known as the Catholic Church...", with no Edit summary. Another editor, Snoded, change it back, without an explanatory Edit summary. All very unhelpful.

So, what is it, and why? (And why won't people use helpful Edit summaries?) HiLo48 (talk) 07:08, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this be better asked at the article's talk page? Without even checking, I can guarantee there have been previous discussions on the issue, and there will be plenty of educated and not-so-educated editors interested in having their say about this, most of whom never visit here. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 07:11, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thought about that, and the fact that my ignorance on the matter isn't going to contribute to improving the article, which is what Talk pages are supposed to be for. I guess the answer to my question might improve the article (it's not there now), so maybe I'll try there if nothing constructive happens here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me the Catholic Church means the Roman Catholic Church, not the Eastern Orthodox Church or any other. However, others may disagree. StuRat (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Catholic" means "universal", and "Orthodox" means "true doctrine". Ne'er the twain shall meet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good illustration of the peculiarities of wikipedia. There are a number of "Catholic" churches - Byzantine Catholic, for one. But because of the "common names" thing (on which countless hours are wasted in wikipedia), "Catholic Church" was set to "Roman Catholic Church". The other petty debate is that RCC members supposedly don't call themselves the RCC, but only the CC. RCC is "outsiders" terminology - to distinguish from the other "Catholic" churches. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's more complicated than that. See Nicene Creed, which contains the phrase "We believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" where the word "catholic" means merely "universal"; nearly all major Christian denominations use the Nicene Creed (or a close version of it) and use the word "catholic" in it, even if they are not part of the (Roman) Catholic Church. So, you get a situation where most Christian profess to being part of the "little c" catholic church (the universal church) even if they are not members of the "Big C" Catholic Church. --Jayron32 07:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I was raised protestant, and I never once heard the term "catholic", big or small C, used in reference to anything except Roman Catholic, and the much smaller "Catholic" church branches. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:39, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugs, did you never recite the Nicene Creed in your church? The Church of England uses that creed in all its services, and I grew up being very puzzled indeed why we were saying "We believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church". --TammyMoet (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I don't recall anyone even mentioning it. But if they do that in the C of E, I could imagine your confusion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with Protestant traditions that never touch the creed, Nicene or Apostolic, those that use it with "catholic", and those that use it with "universal" substituted. I am skeptical of a claim of "most" with regard to any outcome: perhaps more denominations use a creed than not, but in my experience, Baptists and Pentecostals (generally acknowledged as two of the larger Protestant groupings) don't incorporate creeds into their services regularly. — Lomn 14:23, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those "We need to stop fighting about this, so we just picked a convention and stuck to it". There's been gigabytes of text wasted on the endless debates over whether or not the word "Roman" appears in the title of the article or not, and the current state of affairs is simply where the latest cease-fire has been drawn. I'm sure, if you wished, you could fire another volley in the war and start the acrimony up again, but I don't know that we'd end up any closer to a universally acceptable solution. While you're at it, you could go and change the capitalization of the definite articles for every mention of The Beatles (or is it the Beatles? I forget where that one stopped spinning), or try to remove (or add) another i to Aluminium or really just pick one of these. --Jayron32 07:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting changing the article's name. Just wondering, especially after that silly exchange today. HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To me Roman Catholic Church is simply being more specific, just like United States of America is more specific than United States (there are other United States: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/23/world/americas/leader-of-the-other-united-states-urges-changing-mexicos-name.html?_r=0 ). What do we call that article? I just checked. We call it "United States", which is its normal name when we are not being super-formal, and indeed even when we are. It's not called the "United States of America" article, which would be the most specific. Likewise even when there are five or more famous people of the same name, we do not revert to using, for any of them, that person's full long name in that person's article title, even though it might be on all that person's official documents. We use their famous, short, and unofficial name. By the same token, I think calling the article Catholic Church is fine. Plenty of articles are called by their most familiar, not most specific and formal terms. This also serves to make wikipedia more accessible. It makes sense if you think about it: not every reader would know that "roman catholic church" refers to the catholic church, but in the other direction there wouldn't be any confusion. If there is confusion in the OTHER direction ("catholic church" is searched for or the title read, but the reader thinks it will be about something else, as would be the case if Madonna was the article about the singer, even though that might be what most people think of in a non-religious context) then perhaps a disambiguation-style solution is best. However, I don't think this is the case in this particular situation. While we might need "Madonna (entertainer)" and "Madonna (art)" as otherwise someone might be confused looking at the wrong Madonna page, we don't need a United States (of America) and a Catholic Church (Roman denomination) or something as I personally don't think there is confusion. We simply call articles by their most common non-slang name (like United States) and not by their most precise one. This makes articles so much more accessible. Sometimes you'll notice this when searching for the most precise name and getting redirected. It's easy to see how the redirect is good, even though it makes the title less precise, as it makes it more accessible. 91.120.48.242 (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The way it worked is this: for centuries, the Catholic Church was simply the name of that big Church made up of smaller Particular Churches, even if people didn't really always use that helpful word "Particular" to express this meaning. One of these Particular Churches is the Roman Church, with the Bishop of Rome as the Patriarch. When all these Churches were in Communion as one big Church, the Bishop of Rome was "first among bishops", although exactly what that meant and how strong it was is disputed.

Then, there were various schisms, including the Great Schism. Ignoring the Oriental Orthodox for a moment (who schismed earlier), the two chunks of the Church (each made up of smaller Churches) split away from each other and formed Churches made up of those Particular Churches we already met. The more Eastern Churches mostly joined what we now call the Eastern Orthodox (they emphasise that their Church is 'right') and mostly the more Western Churches joined what is called the Catholic Church (they emphasise that their Church is 'universal'). The biggest Church within the Catholic Church is the Roman Church, but their are other Churches within it that are not the Roman Church. When someone says "Catholic Church" without further context, everyone knows what is meant, because this is the common name. The name used to describe the Catholic Church in Catholic documents is "the Catholic Church" or "the Holy Catholic Church".

But wait, there's more! When the Church of England split from Rome, and left the Catholic Church, this was the beginning of a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment. A lot of names were invented for Catholics and Catholicism in this time, usually aimed at making them sound foreign and disloyal to the country. Hence "popish", "romish", "papists", "romists", "Roman Catholic": emphasising the Pope, and a foreign city. It is a name invented as a slur, in English. When the British government decided to allow Catholicism back into the country, they referred to it exclusively as "Roman Catholic", and the Vatican in corresponding with the British government does likewise: it's hardly the most compromised language they've had to accept when making a deal with a government to allow Catholics to practice within their borders. It's mostly not a big deal, but it's not the common name of the Church, nor is it what they call themselves.

But, there is an extra wrinkle. "Anglo-Catholic" members of the Church of England have a branch theory about the Church, and say that there are three "branches" in what they call the Catholic Church: these being the Orthodox (all of them, Oriental and Eastern, in one branch), the "Roman Catholics" (in which they include all the Eastern Catholics, I guess), and the Anglican Communion. Now, don't be too confused: many other Christians talk about everyone belonging to the "catholic Church" with a small "c", but these Anglo-Catholics are talking about a big "C". And even though they are a small group even within the Anglican Church, and even though their terminology is unique to their group, and even though the common name is clearly that the "Catholic Church" is that big cluster of Churches with the Pope at the top, they are very sure that Wikipedia should never use the name "Catholic Church" to describe that Church, because that's not how they use the word, so it's POV for Wikipedia to use it like that. I think they are often unaware that their branch theory is not generally accepted by people outside Anglo-Catholic circles, so it can be a genuine misunderstanding.

Add in to this that certain groups of Protestants, of that rare sort who think Chick Tracts are a force for good and a source of reliable information, also like to refer to the whole Catholic Church as the "Roman Church", and never lose and opportunity to stick "Roman" in front of "Catholic", as part of their agenda to establish the whole Catholic Church as some sort of pagan Roman mystery religion. They like to claim that the Catholic Church is a direct continuation of pagan Roman rituals and beliefs, due to a conspiracy involving Constantine the Great and the ludicrous The Two Babylons. They will often be found adding "Roman" in front of every single "Catholic" on the encyclopedia, even those where it renders the sentence nonsensical (like discussions of Eastern Catholics, or the Anglo-Catholic branch theory), which suggests they're not even trying.

If people are just using "Roman Catholic" to refer to the largest Church (the Roman Church, the Western Church) in the Catholic Church, that's helpful and clear. When people change evey single use of the word "Catholic" to the longer "Roman Catholic" within an article, that's pretty clearly pushing a point of view. If people are using it to refer to the whole Catholic Church in communion with Rome, that's dubious and unhelpful, and often part of a slow edit war to push their point of view. When they say that Eastern Catholics are Roman Catholic, I assume they have an axe to grind. 86.129.248.199 (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If people, such as me, use the term Roman Catholic because it was the term they were brought up with, they are pushing no POV at all. That you think I am shows that it's YOU that's obsessed and pushing a POV here. Note my original question. I asked. I didn't push a POV. I don't like answers to innocent questions that tell me I'm pushing a POV. Stop thinking that the world is against you. HiLo48 (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made absolutely no comment about how you or any other specific person use the term, or what you maen by it. You asked, and so I explained (briefly, in summary form) the history of these terms, how different groups generally use them, and why there are disputes on Wikipedia. I don't know how you read an accusation of yourself into that. 86.129.248.199 (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 86.129.248.199's summary of the position. That you were brought up to use the term in a particular way does not mean you have a POV, but if you learn better then persisting is POV. Dmcq (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that some people feel strongly, but I can't imagine that your God would worry too much over it. I think to obsess over it would be the POV behaviour here. Thank you for the explanations, but surely it's not that important. HiLo48 (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My interest in this is Wikipedia, not any God or gods. Dmcq (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was a great, informative, and spot-on explanation by 86.129.248.199. Never new those things were called Chick Tracts, fun to read, though. μηδείς (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the West, 'Roman Catholic' is largely used for the Latin Church, i.e. the largest of the Catholic churches. However, do note that in Arabic the Greek Catholic church is known as 'al-kinisa ar-rum al-katolik' (literally 'Roman Catholic Church'), likewise the Greek Orthodox church is known as 'ar-rum al-urtuduks' (Roman Orthodox Church). 'Rome' in that context refers to Eastern Rome, i.e. Byzantine. --Soman (talk) 21:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, absolutely. As the question was about edits on the English language Wikipedia, and the English terms, I deliberately limited and simplified my answer. It's good to remind us that there is a lot more out there, and different usages in other languages. 86.129.248.199 (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post- 6 March 2013: The Catholic Church, those "in communion", i.e. in obedience to the Pope in Rome have many "rites". The big Rite that is most common in US is the Western Rite, thus Roman Catholic Church. There are also 14 rites in the Middle East, Eastern Europe & Asia that are the Eastern Rites. The Wijipedia entry on the various Rites is good, please refer to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_(disambiguation)

The Eastern Rites obedient to the Pope are also Roman Catholic Church, but this can get confusing, because these Eastern Rites should not be confused with Orthodox Churches, Russian Orthodox Church for example, that are not one of the Eastern Rite Catholic Churches obedient to the Pope at the Vatican. - posted by MaryCath, 6 March

intellectual property AND COPYRIGHT

IN COPYRIGHTS, THE IDEA IS NOT MONOPOLIZED BY THE AUTHOR. WHY IS IT THAT IDEA IS NOT INCLUDED? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.111.151 (talk) 10:15, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Read idea-expression divide for the details, but the basic idea is that allowing the idea to be protected by copyright severely inhibits the free flow of information. For example, on Wikipedia, we would only be able to use sources which were in the public domain, since communicating the ideas (facts and figures, biographical details, etc.) inherent in copyrighted works would constitute a copyright violation. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 10:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here before now going on about copyright, can't you cut out the capital letters please? I get from the preceding stuff that you're probably trying to apply copyright in a patent case to extend the term and feeling some injustice about not being able to do so. Surely you've read our articles on patents and copyright minutely by now so you're as aware of everything about them as most people are? Here is a link to a previous question on this exact question Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013_February_12#copyright_and_intellectual_property Dmcq (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)previous answer[reply]

The one who asked: so in copyright, the idea is not covered. why is it that in wikipedia, sharing info from non public domain source constitue a violation? why wont u just get info and write it the other wait because the exact expression is covered by copyright? 121.97.111.151 (talk) 12:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Essay for University

I've been looking for the Nazi who was responsible for the deaths of the handicapped and only stumble upon Heinrich Himmler but he was too up to the top, I mean who was the direct responsible for the plan of extermination of the handicapped. Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oklahomma (talk • contribs) 15:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Philipp Bouhler, who was responsible for Action T4. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Paintings

In Death Becomes Her and Watchmen I saw paintings consisting of numerous smaller paintings, each portraying the same face in different colors. Is this a style, or a mockery of a famous painting, or what? Thanks! 193.224.66.230 (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Andy Warhol's screen print series, the most famous of which was of Marilyn Monroe. --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer, you've just won a can of Campbell's Tomato Soup. :-) StuRat (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Symbol

http://i49.tinypic.com/257ow02.jpg

This is christian symbol, but I can't find it, what does it mean?

193.224.66.230 (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this site [1], it's connected with the coat of arms of Serbia. You can see it in the centre of [2]. --Viennese Waltz 17:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a Serbian cross... AnonMoos (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in our article Coat of arms of Serbia, the 4 objects surrounding the cross are often described as firesteels, a not uncommon heraldic or 'charge' in European heraldry which does not have a specifically religious connotation (of which I'm aware). However, as our more specific article Serbian cross explains, they may derive from an earlier representation of the Greek letter Beta or Cyrillic letter C. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Judge William Adams

What has become of Aransas County court judge William Adams? (The video of him beating his teenage daughter with a belt has gone viral.) Did he resign? Has he been reassigned to another court? Has he lost custody of his two daughters?142.255.103.121 (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

He can be found at [3]. I wonder what has become of his daughter. OsmanRF34 (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked if he's resigned or if he's been reassigned to another court. I don't know what's become of his two daughters and ex-wife.142.255.103.121 (talk) 22:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He was reinstated to the bench in November [4] -- 74.252.5.226 (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to Fife in Northern Rhodesia?

In the First World War, there were fights over British outpost Fife in Northern Rhodesia at the border to German East Africa (now Zambia and Tanzania, respectively). I wondered what happened to Fife, which is astonishingly poorly documented. This historical map and this current map imply that Fife must be very close to modern Tunduma in Tanzania at the border to Zambia, however a little west of that and on the other side of the border. Does anyone know what happened to Fife? --KnightMove (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it is still there just over the border from Tunduma, appears to be more commonly called Old Fife these days according to a google search. MilborneOne (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Fife, Zambia as a redlink to our Fife (disambiguation) page. Alansplodge (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]