Humanities desk
< March 3	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 5 >

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

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]

Autological word? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:52, 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]

Although "whack" is a common enough description of hitting children, the predilection of Wackford Squeers, see Whack-O!, a 1950s British sitcom about a similarly inclined headmaster. Alansplodge (talk) 11:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found THE NAMING OF CHARACTERS IN THE WORKS OF CHARLES DICKENS, Elizabeth Hope Gordon, The Technical High School Indianapolis (1917), but a quick scan through didn't produce an answer. Alansplodge (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They're often called "Dickensian names", given the practice is most often associated with Dickens himself. Bill James played on this in New Baseball Historical Abstract, selecting one or two names of players from each decade of baseball history that would not be out of place in a Dickens novel, under the heading: "Mr. Dickens, I'd like you to meet..." players such as Carlton Molesworth or Heathcliff Slocumb. --Xuxl (talk) 15:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I remember at least one of the bios (written and TV documentary) mentioning that Dickens kept lists of names that he came to him. This article lists a few of them. MarnetteD|Talk 16:02, 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]

Thank you all for your replies. DuncanHill (talk) 15:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Annie Proulx FTW on this one. One of the bad guys in That Old Ace in the Hole is called "Francis Scott Keister".--Shirt58 (talk) 05:04, 9 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 encyclopedia has these articles: Level of support for evolution and Acceptance of evolution by religious groups. Pew Research (no pun) has some percentages here. Tamanoeconomico (talk) 17:13, 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. --Jayron 32 17:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Technically correct but the SBC is happy to stop sending resources to churches and seminaries who don't quiet down on ideas they don't like and have totally required missionaries to sign documents espousing specific doctrinal views. So, while they "don't" have doctrine, that they have made statements against evolution would indicate that they'd say that no true Southern Baptist believes in it. ...Unless it's time to tout their numbers, in which case they'll count members of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship if anyone else in the congregation sends money to the SBC. And because this often needs to be clarified to passing non-Southerners and/or non-Baptists, just being a Baptist from the South does not automatically make one a member of the Southern Baptist Convention. Aside from the aforementioned CBF, there's independent Baptists, Free Will Baptists, Old Regular Baptists, and a bunch of others. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:12, 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. --Jayron 32 21:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction about SBC. Still looking for the numbers! Staecker (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]