MyWiki:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2025 August 12

{| width = "100%"

|- ! colspan="3" align="center" | Humanities desk |- ! width="20%" align="left" | < August 13 ! width="25%" align="center"|<< Jul | August | Sep >> ! width="20%" align="right" |Current desk > |}

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 12

Kenneth W. Dam

I'm currently working on a bio about Lawrence McEnerney. While looking into the history of the University of Chicago writing school, I discovered this comment by McEnerney at a NLRB hearing in 2017. McEnerney is asked when and how the writing program started at UChicago, and he answers: "About 40 years ago, late '70s, early '80s, [by] three faculty members, Joseph Williams, Greg [Colomb] and Kenneth Dam."[1]

This is interesting because I've never seen any other source that mentions Kenneth W. Dam as the co-creator of the writing program, however, it makes a kind of sense, as he was an active faculty member at that time, both as a law professor, provost, and director of the Law & Economics program at UChicago. Another interesting connection is that McEnerney was teaching advanced writing classes to law students in 2004 in his English 11401, "Writing Law" course.[2] But, my primary question remains. Aside from the link to the National Labor Relations Board hearing, I can't find anything connecting Dam to the origins of the writing program. Can anyone help? Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

It is conceivable that Dam's role in the transition of the Little Red Schoolhouse to the more expansive Writing Program was confined to active encouragement and helping to think about form and content, informed by his own experience of the low quality of his students' writing, rather than being involved in its actual organization, but had nevertheless a substantive impact. Have you tried contacting the Writing Program (writing-programuchicago.edu)?  ​‑‑Lambiam 09:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

For information

I am pleased to offer you a page labeled "quality article" by the French Wikipedia (a subject ignored in all other languages): Dance in ancient Rome - in French Égoïté (talk) 07:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@Égoïté If you mean it's a subject ignored in other Wikipedias, it's just that no one had written those articles yet. Wikipedia is a work in progress. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

"My God! But I had no idea that WP is under development! My God! How could I have been unaware of this?" (This is a joke, don't worry)

I don't understand your reaction: I kindly inform Wikipedians that a page providing information on a topic that has not yet been covered (barely touched on in WP ES, in fact) has just been recognized as a quality article, telling me that it can provide a basis for work in other languages, and you react as if I were someone ignorant of how WP works. Without asking who I am or why I'm providing this information? Have you read the page? Evaluated the work? What a positive attitude from you! Learn to say thank you and keep yourself informed. Goodbye, sir. Égoïté (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Then what exactly is the point of your post? This is a page where people ask factual questions about the real world, so your post in both off-topic and a kind of non-sequitur. Like, that article is good... so? What of it? There are many good articles and there are places they get listed for people to find them if they're curious. Instead, you've decided that we should draw our attention to this one in particular just because you wrote much of it? Matt Deres (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@Égoïté It would be best to make a post about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. Abductive (reasoning) 12:58, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Alansplodge (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

@Égoïté: I apologise for the unpleasant responses from Shantaviraj and Matt Deres. They do not represent the RefDesks. What they should have said is something like "Thank you for your work. It would probably be best to post about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dance and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome where you should find editors who share your interest." DuncanHill (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

User:DuncanHill, thanks for that comment. More useful would be for those with nothing to add, to add nothing. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 17:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

In what universe is Shantavira's post unpleasant? Mine was snarky, but don't lump in a good editor like them with the dregs. Matt Deres (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Apologising for other people is always risky business. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree and apologize for people apologizing for other people.  ​‑‑Lambiam 11:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Russia boundaries 1980-2016

Facebook served me a map of Russia with boundaries for 1980-2016. Presumably 2016 is related to its war with the Ukraine, but what changed in 1980? Some boundary treaty with China or Mongolia? Internal border changes with another Union Republic? I can't find any changes, no matter how small, and I'm wondering if this is some autogenerated silliness. Nyttend (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

• The latter. Ghirla^-трёп- 22:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Are you saying an internal border change with another Union Republic, or autogenerated silliness? Nyttend (talk) 02:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

The latter. --Ghirla^-трёп- 22:20, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Papal name

Let's say you're a high level RCC Cardinal, to the extent that you get to be pretty good buddies with the Pope, and you're on a first-name basis. Are you supposed to call him Leo (his papal name), or whatever his pre-Papacy name was? Or is it up to him, so you just go along with whatever he asks for? Is there a tradition or doctrine that predicts what his preference would be? Thanks. 2601:644:8581:75B0:90F2:5EEC:2BFD:58B4 (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of doctrine — what to call the Pope is strictly a matter of practice, because there's nothing in the Bible or the Magisterium that says that one of these options is inherently right or wrong. The Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith doesn't have a direct interest in the question. Nyttend (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

It also matters on context. In a private conversation, he would likely call him Robert or Bob (he was usually referred to as "Father Bob" back in Chicago), but if mentioning his name in any formal context, it would certainly be under his papal name. Xuxl (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to know where, if anywhere, that the pope is referenced in the Bible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Matthew 16:18–19, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Never mind that the "rock" Jesus referred to was Peter's "confession of faith". But the word Pope, which comes from Papa, wasn't used until the 1200s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

The referent in συ εἶ Πέτρος ("you are Rock") is IMO unambiguously the fisherman Simon and not his proclamation of Jesus being the Anointed. See also John 1:42, noting that Aramaic כיפא (kēp̄ā) means "rock".  ​‑‑Lambiam 12:04, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

That's the Catholic viewpoint, as noted earlier.

15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

17 Jesus said to him, “Simon, son of Jonah, you are happy because you did not learn this from man. My Father in heaven has shown you this.

18 “And I tell you that you are Peter. On this rock I will build My church.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

And it is not unambiguous. See Confession of Peter. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:03, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I presented conclusive evidence that "Rock" (whether borrowed from Aramaic as Κηφᾶς, as in John and several epistles by Paul, or translated to Greek Πέτρος as in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John again and Acts) is a name given to the person also known as Simon, a fisherman. This evidence is purely textual and does not depend on any doctrine.  ​‑‑Lambiam 09:03, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Bugs, I was taught that verse 18 is making a pun there "You are Peter (rock) and on this rock..." and that was in a Southern Baptist church. Admittedly, the use of "rock" as his name is a reference to his "rock solid" faith. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:58, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

??? "Pope" is obviously an English word, & "the 1200s" is about when it starts being useful to speak of "English". Are you saying no language used a "papa" term before that period? I doubt that, but whatever. Johnbod (talk) 01:28, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Etymology of "pope":[3] I don't see where Jesus referred to Peter as "papa" or "father". When He spoke of "father", that was in reference to God, which He likely would have said as "Abba". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you - exactly as I suspected, it goes back to Old English, and in Continental languages to around 250 at least. Johnbod (talk) 15:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Cardinals tend to be traditionalists… I suspect most would address him as “Your Holiness” even if he said “Please, call me Bob”. Blueboar (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

But the ones who were friends with him and called him Bob before he became Pope might still call him Bob, at least privately. I suspect anyone who didn't know him well enough to call him Bob before May 8 of this year still doesn't know him well enough to call him Leo, but calls him Your Holiness instead. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:37, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

I doubt that anyone would call him just "Leo" in any event. If they were on a first-name basis already, it would have been "Bob", and I can't see anyone suddenly switching. I'm sure the pope's brothers' messages after the conclave would have started "Congratulations, Bob", not "Congratulations, Leo". But we can't possibly know any of these things for sure. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I had been wondering whether calling him "Bob" would be something like deadnaming. I guess it isn't, but in some religious contexts (e.g. conversion to Islam, like Kareem Abdul Jabbar's) you're supposed to use the new name exclusively ("Congratulations, Kareem"). 2601:644:8581:75B0:4893:3245:85F8:79DD (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Before his accession, there were decades of speculation about what regnal name Prince Charles would take. The most common suggestion was "George VII", often citing unimpeachable sources. Had that actually occurred, imagine the massive confusion in the media and among the general populace, given that he'd been known to the world as Charles for close to 74 years. Leo XIV is close to 70 himself, but I think popes are in a special category, whereby they're expected to adopt a papal name that is not the same as their birth name. Also, prior to their election they're generally unknown to the world at large, so the name change per se is not an issue as far as global recognition is concerned. In fact, there's naturally a great deal of public interest in the background of this new kid on the block who has literally overnight gone from obscurity to global recognition, monarchical status, and leadership of a community of billions of followers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:15, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

Others have said it already above, but I'm going to reiterate it: I doubt a single person in his life is addressing him by name, papal or given. I think he will invariably be addressed, at least insofar as the faithful and the church and administrative staff around him, through titles: 'your holiness', 'holy father' and so forth--including their various cognates or translations in different languages. Perhaps someone outside the faith looking to be irreverent or outright transgressive might shout "Yo Bobbyyyy!" at him at some point, but short of those speculative niche circumstances, he now exists within the linguistic framework of a highly formalized set of relational dynamics and nobody within his daily lived experience, even his former closest friends, is likely to violate those norms, at least as far members of the church go. I suppose family is a possible exception, but in that case I think it is obvious they would use his given rather than papal name--unless, again, attempting to be flippant or sardonic. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:58, 24 August 2025 (UTC)