Humanities desk
< January 5	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 7 >

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.

January 6

UK "ethnic minority controversy" related question - looking for an article on something

This is a difficult question, and in a way there's no "right" place for it. I am looking for an article on a very distasteful controversy and can't find it. If there isn't one then I'm wondering if we have discussion of it.

I'm asking it here initially rather than an article talk page because these pages get archived faster and get less future attention - which is what should happen. I've collapsed it for the same reason.

Question

Background (how I got here)

I've spent much of the last day or two editing and cleaning up the article on the influential murder of Stephen Lawrence, where the trial ended on January 3 - 4 and which changed the law, and arguably the UK. I've made related edits on its related legal articles such as private prosecution and double jeopardy.

Before that I was editing the article on the Higgs boson, a major science topic, and in between some edits on fusion power. I often edit law topics and biographies, one of my GA's is on a 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling on the right to silence.

The Steve Lawrence case led to a very significant report on police racism in the 1990s, the Macpherson Report. That was the 1999 report that branded the UK police "institutionally racist" at the time so that report and the legal changes it proposed are very significant in legal history. I'd like to write up a full article on it. The report was commissioned by Jack Straw as Home Secretary, so I found myself at Jack Straw's article.

Controversy

Towards the end of that article was this item:

"In January 2011, Straw provoked controversy with comments made on Newsnight about Pakistani men.[1] He said "there is a specific problem which involves Pakistani heritage men ... who target vulnerable young white girls." [2]."

I did what I often do and searched for an article or section to wikilink this to, but couldn't find one. (I did exactly the same for Judge Auld, author of the Auld Report mentioned in the Lawrence article). I checked on Google and my news searcher to see if the "Newsnight" controversy was a minor issue which would explain it, but instead found it's got very heavy coverage from many sources including some high profile attention in the UK media and news, and inquiries, investigations, charity concerns, politician comments. That doesn't mean there's anything to it, but does mean there's an article on it (or I'd expect one), if only to ensure we have neutral information on what seems to be a controversy with significant coverage. Mainly I'm looking for my own curiosity, and to see if the entry in Straw's bio is correct and neutrally stated. Examples of mentions (I won't paste most headlines or sources as I find them distasteful):

Examples claiming there's a specific issue or at least a controversy or concern:

The Times: [3] (grooming gang) [4] (dawn police raids on grooming gang) [5] (investigation into grooming) [6] (minister talks about grooming)
Daily Mail: [7] ("top" detective criticizes lots of people on grooming) [8] (fears over damning report)
Other pages (no need to list).

Examples saying the issue may be mis-stated or wrong:

[9] (perpetrators not of any specific ethnic group) [10] (worries over unjust stereotyping of a group because of a small sample or insufficent review of the matter)

Examples of independent discussion of the issue:

[11] (Asian network, BBC, titled "fallout from the pakistani grooming case")

"Pakistani young men" are highlighted particularly in the above sources. That's in statements attributed to detectives, ministers, major politicians on highly influential news shows, major news media. It could be genuine, could be racism or stereotyping or selective attention, and it probably disgusts the British Pakistani community more than anyone else to see such claims.

My question's a simple one. Apologies if the answer is an easy wikilink, but do we have an article on this mess of allegations and claims, however it's described? Or past discussions of it on any talk page? I've looked but not having luck. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do the articles Miscegenation and Anti-miscegenation laws seem related? It isn't directly the same idea, but the whole "The dark races are after the white women" theme is a part of history in the U.S., at least. Perhaps those threads could lead you somewhere. --Jayron32 04:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't seem to have any article on the controversy; possibly if there was a public or parliamentary inquiry or other source of relatively impartial information, an article could be written, but if something exists only as controversial and unproven allegations then it's hard to write a neutral article on it. Not every news event deserves a Wikipedia page (WP:NOTNEWSPAPER) and the dispute was less far-reaching than others involving Jack Straw (e,g, British debate over veils, United Kingdom parliamentary expenses scandal, Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, and the Iraq War). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:09, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron - a good idea, but that issue wasn't part of UK culture. It's in mainstream sources not given to such stuff, and got characterized as serious by some very reputable bodies and individuals also not prone to that sort of thing. I checked round - it was a specific issue that came up at a specific time maybe a year ago. Before that there was nothing of that kind. @Colapeninsula - in a way that would be the worst answer we could have, because if it has the characteristics of a substantial controversy that we would usually cover and not "just another news story/brief pointless allegations", then someone's going to end up writing that article, and mentioning it in / linking it to a bunch of related articles at some point. Do we have any case for "it might be a valid article but we shouldn't have one because it's obnoxious"? I can't think of any such case. I was hoping/expecting it existed and could just be checked for neutrality or read for curiosity to get the balanced picture. Are you sure we don't have it covered somewhere, or at least some discussion on it? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From what I recall, it was a rather brief controversy, which attracted only fleeting media attention. There are no end of stories given this amount of coverage, and few of them merit articles. Given that nobody wrote an article about it at the time, it seems unlikely that one will be written in future, unless the claims resurface. Better to cover it briefly in relevant articles - principally the one on Jack Straw. Warofdreams talk 17:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My impression is that it is an issue of longer standing. Commentators may focus on the victims or the perpetrators, but no one is denying the problem. There is a BBC article today, "Specialist unit investigates grooming of teenage girls". It refers to Jack Straw, and has various people saying there is or isn't a racial dimension. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:12, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Dispatches documentary on Channel 4 recently covered this issue. The episode is still available on Channel 4's on-demand service. Astronaut (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shaktism

Which Ethnic groups of South Asia practice the sect of Shaktism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.20.253 (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the Wikipedia article titled Shaktism, the sense I get is that it is practiced, in some form, pretty much throughout Hindu-practicing parts of the world and isn't confined to any one ethnicity within the Hindu world. --Jayron32 04:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know that Bengali hindus are Shaktis but what about other ethnic groups of India? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.95.107.92 (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Shaktism is not any kind of organized uniform movement or splinter from Hinduism, but is a general term for an emphasis on goddess-worship within Hinduism (sometimes associated with Tantrism, but by no means confined to it), so the term "sect" might not be very appropriate. AnonMoos (talk) 17:28, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help me find the lost article: List of possible Antichrists (or something to that effect)

I read it years ago. I'm not sure about the title's exact string anymore. Among the listees were Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-il. (Would have to be re-edited to Kim Jong-un at this point, unless the prophecy of the Antichrist coming back from the dead holds true, at which point we may include Osama bin Laden, who could return by hiking to and walking up out of a beach.)

But still, where is the article? I know it existed; I would not dismiss it as a hallucination. Thanks. --70.179.174.101 (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those don't seem like good antichrists, to me. The AC is supposed to appear to be a "good guy" and have great charisma, attracting followers who are then led astray. bin Laden somewhat qualifies, but the majority of people on Earth knew he was evil all along. How about someone like Jim Jones ? StuRat (talk) 03:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

closest I can find is List of fictional Antichrists. There was, however, a similar article that was apparently deleted (deletion discussion here). --Ludwigs2 03:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ludwigs notes exists from Wikipedia's halcyon youth. It was actually a horrific BLP violation that would likely be speedied today as an attack page. --Jayron32 04:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'halcyon' should really be in scare-quotes...

--Ludwigs2 04:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the point I go "Oh. My. God. I cannot beleiiiiiive that article...." FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Wikipedia's defense that article was created on April 6, 2005 and deleted April 11. (Also I consider 2001-2002 Wikipedia's youth. 2005 was more similar to today's.) Rmhermen (talk) 19:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(For those who can't see deleted pages, it contains a list of purported characteristics of an antichrist, followed by a bunch of well-known individuals the user claims meets them. With laughable evidence, like "has mark on forehead". In encyclopedia or information terms, zero value and worse than useless. Headdesk. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC) )[reply]

Would that be Gorbachev? He was a pretty popular antichrist figure for a period of time [12], and did have that mark on his head. In fact, declaring people to be antichrists is a depressingly common thing [13]. I bet you could set some criteria, find some reliable sources, and make a pretty good list, if anyone wanted to put some time into it. Buddy431 (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were some who wondered (perhaps seriously, perhaps not) whether then-President Ronald Wilson Reagan was the "anti-Christ", given that there were 6 letters in each of his three names. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary

Is there a legal framework by which the EU could force a change in government? I am particularly concerned with Hungary, but my question is broader in that could this be done for any country? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 10:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. The EU is a collection of sovereign states, internal politics is a matter for internal electorates. --Saalstin (talk) 11:05, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the internal politics have been changed so that the ruling party, and only the ruling party, can be elected? KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How would that be any of the EU's business? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well EU Charters and the treaties that entered it into force could well do exactly that... make it the EU's business. Of course when push comes to shove, "international law" is a secondary consideration. Shadowjams (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is what i am thinking of. The EU charter is supposed to be exactly designed for that. Unless I am reading it wrong. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 11:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very surprised if any EU charter or treaty has provisions for forcing a change of government in a member state. What they most likely make provision for is an escalating scale of sanctions for any member state that disregards its treaty obligations. The ultimate sanction would be expulsion of a state from the EU. The closest precedent I can think of is Greenland. which voluntarily left the EC (predecessor of the EU) in 1985 because it disagreed with EC regulations around fishing rights. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a given EU country lives up to the EU rules, why would the EU care otherwise? Granted that might be a rather large "if". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The EU has previously imposed sanctions on its member Austria in protest at Austria forming a government including the far-right Freedom Party of Austria.[14] That would be a precedent, although the sanctions are described as being largely symbolic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other member states can respond to events, but only from an external perspective - other users have already referenced Austria elected the freedom party, which led to symbolic sanctions. The ultimate sanction states could impose would be if we all decided to kick another one out of the Union, but even then they would simply be a state with a government we didn't like outside the EU - there is simply no capacity, nor should there be, for one government, or 26 together, to install an alternative government in a member state --Saalstin (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is KägeTorä - (影虎) "particularly concerned with Hungary"? Is there a link to it? 88.14.198.215 (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The controversial new Constitution of Hungary, I assume. Warofdreams talk 17:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, what European treaties/laws concern themselves with domestic elections? The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union provides for a right for EU citizens resident in another EU state to vote in its local elections on the same basis as its citizens - though I suppose it doesn't really guarantee that there have to be local elections, and it may or may not apply to the UK, Poland, and the Czech Republic anyway (due to their oddly-worded opt-out). There is Article 3 of Protocol 1 of the ECHR, which has presumably been ratified by all EU members (our article just says that Monaco and Switzerland have not ratified Article 1 of Protocol 1 - does that mean all other members of the Council of Europe have signed and ratified the whole protocol?). What else is there? In the hypothetical situation, would the justification for any EU sanctions be based on the ECHR, or something specific to the EU? 81.98.43.107 (talk) 15:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about the unelected 'national governments' in Greece and Italy? There is certainly a point of view that these were effectively imposed by the EU in order to agree the latest plan to save the Euro. Of course non of this happens within a legal framework, but then for all the arguments about treaty wordings the EU can be remarkably, umm, pragmatic when it comes to saving the project. 90.196.111.230 (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fax machines

Did anyone ever say "We do not need to go to war now that we have fax machines", (or something similar), or was it just a dream I once had? Trellis Reserve (talk) 12:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was meant in the sense that "we don't need to send reporters to war, we get news through fax." 88.14.198.215 (talk) 21:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mary Custis Lee and Robert E. Lee Jr 1845.jpg

Is that child with Mary Custis Lee in this picture really Robert E. Lee, Jr.? If you ask me, that child looks more like girl than boy...-Henswick (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Infants of either sex were often dressed kind of doll-like or girlishly in those days. That general fact doesn't prove anything about this particular photo, though. More research of other family photos would be needed. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't really a stress on dressing boys masculinely almost from birth until as late as the 1920s. Before that time, "breeching" didn't occur before a boy had started walking... AnonMoos (talk) 14:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A reference from Victorian Childhood: Themes and Variations By Thomas Edward Jordan: "A Victorian practice quite unlike our own was the practice of keeping boys in petticoats for several years...". Alansplodge (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The curls are also not exactly what one would associate with a boy. However I am no expert in 19th century childrens clothing, so they might surprise me (after all they took family photos of dead people so I am prepared for anything). --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Lees also had four daughters, so perhaps the child in the image is really one of them. This image appears to be the same as this one, which is an original daguerreotype belonging to the Virginia Historical Society. Its image file in Wikimedia claims that it is public domain, because of its age, but the Virginia Historical Society says "Additional publication or distribution of this image without the explicit written consent of Virginia Historical Society is prohibited." Can an image old enough to be public domain in the US still be prohibited from unauthorized reproduction by the owner of the photo? Edison (talk) 19:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The can claim anything they want. It doesn't mean they can enforce it. --Jayron32 20:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can something be public domain and have an owner at the same time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.9.214.197 (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. See Peter_and_Wendy#Copyright_status. In the UK, the original Peter Pan play is in the public domain, so it may be copied without incumberance. However, royalties are still due because of a special legislation to enforce a provision of J.M. Barrie's will which gave such royalties from performances to a Children's Hospital. --Jayron32 03:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This painting of Queen Victoria's family in 1848, shows from the right, Prince Alfred in a frock and (standing at Victoria's knee) Prince Albert Edward with his hair curled in ringlets. This is three years after the Robert E Lee photo. Alansplodge (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The hair is nothing like the hair on the child shown in the photograph, though. The hair on the girl on the right is closer to it. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I was trying to give you a reference that showed that small boys did wear dresses and did have their hair curled, which I believe I have done, even if it is not an exact match. You may interpret that information as you wish. Alansplodge (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the attempt, and would not mind some more examples, because I am still not completely convinced that boys had ringlets in their hair. At least the painting shows a boy with long hair and natural curls rather than ringlets. That boys could wear dresses until a certain age is well documented (and of course we do have an article on it). --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at File:Governess.jpg, the first picture in the children's section in 1850s in fashion. Them's ringlets for sure. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Santa Claus letters

What does the post office do with all that mail to Santa? Or the Spanish post office with the letters to the biblical Magi for that matter.--85.52.88.200 (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada, at least, if you write a letter to Santa, he (or actually the post office employees) will write a letter back to you. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, the Royal Mail will try to respond[15]; in the USA, local volunteers handle the letters[16]; in Canada, volunteers at Canada Post write back[17]. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Santa Claus#Letter writing to Santa and Santa letters. -- ToE 15:31, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related is the Club di Giulietta in Verona which answers letters written to Juliet Capulet. (These letters are the inspiration for the film Letters to Juliet and the album The Juliet Letters.) Does Wikipedia have any other articles on groups which answer letters to fictitious or non-living recipients? -- ToE 16:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The former occupants of 221B Baker Street used to employ someone for this purpose. Shimgray | talk | 19:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago when I was a reporter, I did a story about the custodian at the local post office who volunteered to handle letters to Santa on his own time. Paraphrasing what I wrote at the time, the man took on the task presumably because the rest of the staff was so busy at that time of year, and letters to Santa needed special handling. The man told children he would look over the letters "for spelling and grammar," then use a special delivery system to get them to the North Pole. Shortly before Christmas, each child received a return letter from Santa, and their parents received a separate letter. (It's a small town, so there were just a few hundred letters, but none went unanswered.) — Michael J 06:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please help (church questions)

hello,

please answer the questions below (these are important for this article):

Does it require permission from a bishop to create a parish?
Is a priest a "Father"?
Can someone reword this sentence: The 65 m long main aisle is five bays long, each with lateral arms one bay long., because of the dual use of "bays long"

Thanks. ♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 21:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Insofar as a parish is centered around a particular church, yes, it needs permission from a superior authority, since the church needs to be consecrated.

But why the source ([18]) does not name a superior authority, but it just says: In January 1990, a group of Catholics in Moscow formally founded the parish of the Immaculate Conception of the Holy Virgin Mary. Maybe the next sentence answers my question, but I don't quite understand it, as I lose track of so much terms. You need to explain it to someone, who don't know much about Catholicism :).--♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 01:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. In the Catholic church, that is the term we use, though it doesn't mean he is literally anybody's dad.

But how about "Brother"? As I understand correctly, those terms are ranks. "Father" is higher than "Brother"; "Brother"s are those who work in the church, such as painter, baker, etc. But "Father" is a head? --♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 01:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers belong to religious teaching orders whose members are not priests. The Christian Brothers and the Marist Brothers fall into this category. Nothing to do with paintng or baking. It's also not about being higher or lower than priests; they're outside that structure completely. Within the priesthood, it goes priest > bishop > cardinal (it's a bit more nuanced than that, but that's essentially it). -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:39, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Your answer is very instructive and informative! :) ♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 11:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3. I'll leave this one to someone else. Mingmingla (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added to the title to make it useful:

3) Not quite sure what "5 bays long" means, can you explain ? Instead of "long" you can say "in length", so "The main aisle is 65 m in length, ..." or "The main aisle extends for 65 m, ...". StuRat (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It does make sense in Germany. "Joch" in English means "Bay", and in Germany it is also a unit. ♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 01:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I misunderstand query #3: The architectural term for for main aisle is nave. Parallel to the nave are the aisles. There may be a transept crossing the nave. The part where the altar is located is the apsis. There may be additional apses for the aisles.

A bay generally is the rectangle described by the four columns at its corners. In your sentence, each bay would be 13m long and have the width of the nave. The term "lateral arms" in your example presumably refers to the bays of the aisles (one or two) left and right of the nave, which seem to have the same length but may be narrower. As a "bay" is an area and not a unit of length, the last part of the sentence does not really make any sense.

If you provide us with the name of the church / cathedral or a reference to the text we may be able to clarify the matter. --Incognito.ergo.possum (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our mellifluous OP did so with the "this article" link. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.193.78.41 (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does it require permission from a bishop to create a parish? Not in Louisiana! Meelar (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the "father-brother" thing in Catholicism: It has 'nothing' to do with rank. "Father" is a term used for a priest (see Priesthood (Catholic Church)), whereas "brother" is a term used for a member of a monastic order (see Christian monasticism). While not all priests are pastors, the primary training and job of a priest in Catholicism is to be a pastor (i.e. leader of a church congregation), so the "father" name merely means that he is the leader of his congregation (the word "pastor" is also a euphamism as well, meaning "shepherd"). All priests may be called "father", even if the priest holds another job instead of being a pastor. Members of monastic orders are not intended to be leaders of church congregations, so they are brothers, and not fathers. Also, being a monk and a priest are not mutually exclusive. One can be both a member of a monastic order and a priest at the same time; and one can be one or the other without being both (i.e. one can be a priest without being a monk, and one can be a monk without being a priest). Other honorifics used in Catholicism include "Monsignor", which is accorded to priests who belong to certain orders, "Excellency", which is used for Bishops, and Eminence is used for cardinals of all ranks, whether cardinal deacons, cardinal priests, or cardinal bishops. --Jayron32 01:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bishops are most usually addressed as "Your Grace", but it's a complex story. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 01:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently only "your Grace" in Commonwealth countries and the Republic of Ireland; see Style (manner of address). Alansplodge (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answers. Jayron's answer is like usual very significant and helpful. Now I have more knowledge in this area. Thanks again.♫GoP♫_T ^C _N 11:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To complicate things further, Bishops are NOT normally addressed as "Your Grace" - this form of address is reserved for Archbishops (and Dukes). This at least is the case in the Anglican Church. Also in the Anglican church, a priest may be addressed as "Father" if he is in a "high church" parish, otherwise he would be addressed as "Vicar/Rector" (depending on his appointment) or just as "Mr Smith".--rossb (talk) 16:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ablaq masonry

What do we have for an article or partial article or section on ablaq masonry?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have anything specifically about ABLAQ (Arabic term for alternating light and dark courses of masonry), but you will find a lot of articles about it outside of WP. --Omidinist (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This search shows that it is mentioned in many Wikipedia articles, it seems a common enough architectural element that it should stand up as an article topic. ~~Ablaq is a redlink right now, but if someone could scrape together a few reliable sources, that could change.~~ --Jayron32 04:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That search is what Doug Coldwell, the gentleman who is himself a committed WPedian, must have done himself before his post. I think he is looking for more than that. --Omidinist (talk) 09:51, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did do research on this before I made my post. Just wanted to make sure there was not already an article on it that perhaps I missed. It looks like there is much material out there and I am working up a draft now to make a complete article on it with a DYK. Jayron, that is why I delinked your redlink and stiked out your sentence so I could drop in an article when I am ready and yet have it qualify for a DYK (1500 characters) as a new article. Thanks for y'alls input.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 20:45, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]