User talk:Wetman/archive22Mar2005

"Honest, I was just thinking, Armida, if those columns were a freight train, we'd be dead about now."

Please add your new remarks at the bottom, so we can find them. I'll know where to file them when I have time...

A useful directory to sources of public domain images is Wikipedia:Public domain image resources

See also:

User talk:Wetman/archive3Mar2004

User talk:Wetman/archive16Jun2004

User talk:Wetman/archive12Aug2004

User talk:Wetman/archive16Oct2004

User talk:Wetman/archive15Jan2005

Outstanding Wikipedians!

Rembrandt's Rape of Ganymede: User:Haiduc's prize-winning caption: "... he uses the work as to denounce the same-sex love of his day. As he would have it, the men are rapacious animals, represented by the aggressive eagle, and the youths vulnerable children, here represented by the squalling toddler pissing in fright, his rear turned to the viewer to underline the heinousness of the act." (Are we pronouncing that anusness?)

On Geography: "I DO NOT consider the CIA world factbook either reliable or unbiased." CheeseDreams 02:53, 16 Jan 2005

On Scottish Tartans: "The "kilt" can be worn by anyone with scottish heritage (including by marrage), or from a location with a tartan (Canada and each province has a tartan that would be appropriate to wear).... There are many approriate tartans to wear. A person from Chile would wear the Cochrane tartan, to recognize the great contribution of the Admiral Cochrane to that country." User:Glenlarson

Fixed FPC nomination

Here's the diff with the changes I made. [1]. I found the original name of the image too long so I named the subpage I created "Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Auckland centered world map". Also note the miscapitalization and the missing colon in the nomination code on the main FPC page.

Hope I've been of help. Mgm|^(talk) 08:41, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Yes you have. Embarrassingly simple. I'm really quite bright in other ways. Really I am... --Wetman 08:45, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

If you have the requisite knowledge (not many do) to contribute to this historic and important subject you are welcome. Bearing in mind the global significance of this subject, and its unapreciated place in modern history, I suggest you check your emails. Giano 19:29, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Pre-Olympian

Night the first

Hey Wetman, Sorry about the Sea Gods edit - I should have brought this up on your talk page. For the moment, I'm going to rv the article, and then we can chat about it later. My own damn fault for editing at 3:30 AM (hence 'NPOV' for 'POV'). Best, Bacchiad 16:26, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello! In what follows, I've interrupted you in italics, to be really specific --Wetman 07:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"The ancient Greeks had a large number of sea gods, or, alternatively, they had numerous localized names for them. Tethys, Thetis or Eurynome may all be manifestations of the same sea goddess, and indeed Homer refers to Phorcys, Proteus and Nereis on different occasions each as the "Old Man of the Sea." All these appear to be "old" Aegean deities that preceded the arrival of the Olympian Gods.

What could be an issue with this material? Are the alternative readings of large number vs. localized deities an issue somehow?, Wetman asked.

No. But I don't grasp the leap from variant names to formerly ascendent old gods marginalized by a religious ideology imposed from without, Bacchiad responded.

Okay, I've thrown two ideas together: bad. How's the above revision, separating multiplicity from "ancient" then? --Wetman 07:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Can anyone not know [that was a smidge intolerant eh] that there is a level of Greek myth that precedes the introduction of the Olympian gods? Wetman exclaimed.

'Bout a century to a century-and-a-half ago, the scholarly consensus went something like this:

Wait! You do agree that there is a level of Greek myth that precedes the introduction of the Olympian gods, don't you? And you don't discard all writers save Burkert do you?--Wetman 07:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

During the Greek Dark Ages, light-skinned patriarchal/patrilineal Indo-European-speaking male-sky-god worshipping pastoralists descended on a Greece populated by swarthy matriarchal/matrilineal who-knows-what-speaking earth-goddess worshipping agriculturalists. The gods of the conquerors, in ascendence, became the Olympian gods. The gods of the conquered, marginalized, became the chthonic gods, Titans, etc. aka "Pre-Olympians". Faint echoes of this conflict survived in the Theogony and the Oresteia.

(I'm not, BTW, suggesting that you, Kerenyi, or any other contemporary still thinks this).

Stripped of its Victorian racist baggage, everyone agrees that there are certain levels of culture, whatever the details, and a connected layering of mythologies, whatever the details, and that remnants of earlier myth survive in later myth, and especially in myth that explains inexplicable old cult ritual:

1. a Cycladic late Neolithic culture centered in the Cyclades (pretty inscrutable)
2. a "Minoan" Aegean Bronze Age culture centered in Crete, with continuities from Neolithic and with Near Eastern and Anatolian cultural connections;
3. ancient Anatolian cultures with Hittite connections;
4. finally, more than one wave of IE migrants/invaders from the north pre-1200 to ca 800: Achaeans, Mycenaeans, Dorians whoever (plus Cadmus), affecting the earlier culture even in its heartland, as they adapted Linear B

Are we in step here? --Wetman 07:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Then the cards began to fall. First off someone pointed out that 'Olympus' itself is a non-Greek name yes (brought to you by the same mysterious substrate that yielded -nth- suffixes like in 'Corinth') yes. Then someone else pointed out that 'Demeter' is a perfectly legit I-E name though the grain goddess pre-existed this name for her, yes?, and the most common chthonic cults were those of heroes, positively brimming with I-E ideology. no; there are several layers of chthonic cults Then the Theogony turned out to be a re-working of already old Near Eastern narratives Hittite especially, transforming myth by aggressively patriarchal readings, undermining its historiographical value no: but perceptive disentanglement is certainly needed. Then the big whammy: Mycenean turned out to be Greek, and thus I-E, and a lot of the 'Olympian' gods showed up in the Pylos tablets. no, just some of them; which ones is essential here: Dionysus is the surprise; no trace of Zeus; is Enyalios Ares?

Two possible responses to this. One, give up the idea of a monolithic Olympianism imposed from without,done! it's a composed set, not a unitary kit that came in its own box and dispense with Olympian and Pre-Olympian as historically meaningful categories no, that would indeed be to treat them as a unitary kit; think of levels rather than watertight categories. Two, back off the racial/linguistic claims gods change names, gods collect new cult, gods adjust their personas, and some names are inexplicable in Greek: Aphrodite etc and let the Mycenean Greeks into the Pre-Olympian club don't think of these as closed clubs or impenetrable blocks, while shifting all of the onus of Olympianism onto the later-coming Greeks.why all? When does Dionysus replace Hestia? Why is Persephone not at Olympus in the green season? What does the battle with Titans suggest?

Kerenyi and a few others followed the second tack.too rigid a characterization I think, however, that the scholarly consensus is for the first tack - Burkert mostly follows it, and he is scholarly consensus embodied.

Burkert is your man, then. Forsaking all others? Have you read Kerenyi on Eleusis? --Wetman 07:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to have a Pre-Olympian or Origins of Greek Mythology page, a la life-death-rebirth deity?

Yes! Essential!

All of these issues and viewpoints are important, and deserve space. In many cases, it would be appropriate to have a ==Pre-History== section further down, as in Poseidon. In general, I'd say that since the pre-history of Greek myth is so foggy and controversial, it'd be best not to address it in the *introductions* of daughter articles. In many cases, it would be appropriate to have a ==Pre-History== section further down, as in Poseidon.

"...to Poseidon, made into an Olympian and given a son, Triton, who wrestled with Heracles." Poseidon precedes the Olympian twelve: his name appears at Pylos. This is not in contention, is it?

He proceeds some of the Olympian Twelve. Zeus no, Hermes no?, Athena yes, Dionysus yes, and Hera yes, but not with that name are all there. Essentially, all of the 13-15 Twelve Olympians were "made" into Olympians - the grouping was pretty arbitrary, and had little effect on most cult practice.

So "made into an Olympian" struck me as redundant. On the Triton-Heracles point, I didn't see the relevance here. "Redundant" as too obvious to permit mentioning? The main point is that we have two levels here, and of these sea deities, only Poseidon makes the transition, bringing some minor characters with him "in his train" so to speak. That's the most difficult idea in Greek sea deities and needs to be kept in view.

"some early Greek thinkers like the writers of Orphic hymns (see Orpheus) made the sea-divinities into primordial powers." Is there something that needs to be defended here?

Which Orphic material in particular did you have in mind? Orphic poetry is always hard to date yes. and fragmentary this certainly needs specific quotes, and what is securely datable (like the surviving hymns) tends to be late late texts don't always mean late mythic content: Dionysiaca, Argonautica. The article already had Homer and Alcman, who are demonstrably early, so I thought those sufficed.

"Several names of sea gods conform to a single type: that of Homer's halios geron." What would induce one to suppress the name of Homer (it's the source/reference) in this statement?

Stupidity, sir. Sheer stupidity.

I hope you agree that when I'm mistaken, I'm very specifically mistaken, and credit me with the struggle for precision, Bacchiad.

No, no. You were exactly right. It was my stupidity for removing it. Bacchiad 09:11, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

So again, I apologize for the brusque way I handled this. The major problem I had was that although the edit-summary said, "more flexible interpretations", I thought the edit in fact imposed a particular viewpoint on the origins of Greek religion (best dealt with elsewhere) onto the article.

Origins of Greek religion have to be constantly dealt with all through these entries. Specific points can be made that get elided in the general. Notice how I shirk big general articles. --Wetman 07:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The possible equation of Thetis, Tethys and Eurynome should be dealt with - perhaps in their respective articles. how can this be done? by repeating the same thoughts three times, once for each? This one is the overarching article for all sea deities, and the ripe moment to draw parallels and contrasts and conclusions: the rest is but detail. I think the interchangeability of Old-Man-of-the-Sea names was already dealt with OK, but I would have no objection to additional language in the relevant paragraph (as opposed to the introduction) if you think it would improve clarity.

BTW: I liked your additions to Greek Mythology.

If we can work together, the series on Greek myth can be even better than it's already become.--Wetman 07:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bacchiad 05:57, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

First Olympic Games: delivering corn dogs to the upper stands

Night the second

Linear B — Zeus is there: DI-U-JA. The only issue is, PO-SE-DA-WO-NE occurs more frequently, leading to the (reasonable) conjecture that Poseidon was more important.

..specifically as the Lord with the Two Goddesses. As you see, I didn't recheck Chadwick. DI-U-JA being IE (yes?), he has been introduced at that Minoan/Mycenaean geological "discontinuity"

"Scholarly consensus" - Let me begin by saying I hate scholarly consensus. So although I'm not a huge fan of Kerenyi, the fact that he's not part of it isn't what bugs me about him. I am, on the other hand, a huge fan of Georges Dumezil and Detienne/Vernant. Sexy and French though they are, they're not scholarly consensus. Burkert's Greek Religion book, on the other hand, pretty accurately reflects scholarly consensus on most issues, which makes it safer to use in NPOV articles without disclaimers. (Though that's not true of, say, his Homo Necans).

Right! "Scholarly consensus" is a self-justifying will-o'-the-wisp, too often taken up as a cudgel, as a spurious prop to authority: a bug to eliminate from one's hard-drive. For, within the Burkert coterie (do I detect that you make one?), Kerenyi plays the Trotsky role, eliminated from the "mainstream" formulation. So I'd say instead: don't dismiss even Robert Graves or Joseph Campbell: Graves perfected the art of unravelling parallel and alternate, self-contradictory threads, and Wikipedia should take a tip from his techniques in Greek Myths— even if we avoid The White Goddess.

Burkert is okay. Greek Religion is the standard work on the subject, with some justice. The Orientalizing Period is a better treatment of the Near Eastern connection than, say, M.L. West's nonsensical East Face of Helicon - but it still gets bogged down in many of the common mistakes of diffusionism. Homo Necans is unreadable and to my mind pretty uninsightful; ditto for Creation of the Sacred.

For full disclosure, my favorite mythology authors are Dumezil, Gregory Nagy and Marcel Detienne.

Layering — I don't in principle object to the layering metaphor. But I think we can be more precise about the layers than Olympian and Pre-Olympian. For example, compare Poseidon is clearly a pre-Olympian figure in the Pylos tablets vs. The Poseidon of the Pylos tablets appears to have differed markedly from the familiar Olympian god of the classical age.

Good! We have to briefly say how, or the assertion isn't informative. "Indo-European" should remain an adjective applied to some of the strata.

For pre-Olympian, we can specify "Minoan", "Mycenean", "I-E", "Near Eastern", "pre-Greek indigenous", etc. For Olympian, we can specify a more historically precise term, such as "Homeric", or "classical", or whatever.

The Greek mythology article should introduce and link these terms, whose designations need to clear; then more specific articles like Greek sea gods could link securely to the main article with a "more on this subject" reference.

User Ril (sp?) added a section on Prehistory, which I made some changes to. Could use some work, but it starting to come in place.

When I alluded to Poseidon as an Olympian in the first paragraph, all I was trying to signify was that he was counted as one of the 13-15 twelve chief gods of Greece in the classical period. Thus showing the range of esteems and roles in which the various sea-gods were held. I wasn't trying to make any definitive statement about the historical value-system he necessarily embodied.

Oh, okay!

Placement of pre-history - I'll agree that the pre-history of various figures is worth discussing in their respective articles. I will still submit, however, that this is best addressed in the body, not the introduction, of the article.

Good, I'll work that way consistently. "Rites" would make a good subsection too. Replacing some of that "patron-saint-analog" stuff. What are some other subsections?

What do you think of Zeus and Poseidon as a paradigm for single-figure articles? Intro-Prehistory-Cult-Myth.

Enyalios = Ares? - Depends ;)

A redirect from Enyalios to Ares, where the evolving relationship should be treated in one place, with a good link at epithet.

Myth and Dream. Sweet.

Thanks.

Bacchiad 20:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC) Wetman 23:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Night the Third

Thanks, Wetman. Thanks to your laudable hard-headedness and extremely useful feedback, the article is coming along nicely. Bacchiad 05:07, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Calling Card

I'm stopping by to register my pleasure in reading your user page. I particularly liked your comments on wit and neutrality. One of my favourite reference books is Chambers Dictionary ISBN 055010013X. It can be very dry, and holds hidden gems like one of the entries for faithfully — "a meaningless word used to end a business letter".

I am as you say a Christianist, but I am a strong advocate of the NPOV and think that facts, palatable or not, should be presented side-by-side. A faith that cannot present itself as a choice among other belief systems is no faith at all. I do not plan to get embroiled in the religionism here. In that spirit, I have been active in the Bible books, adding links to the Christian translations at Bible Gateway for example. I recently made a template for citing entries at that site, especially for use in external links: e.g. John+18:37-38 at Bible Gateway (various versions). Make of that what you will.

It's been a pleasure. Dizzley (Peter H) 07:56, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, thanks! It's good to hear sometimes that I'm not the only one looking at my Userpage and cackling at my own jokes. Now, I do recognize that there are Christians as well as Christianists, but, like Modesty, they don't serve nearly so well as figures of humor. External links offering a range of translations of Scripture are an excellent idea: I've been noticing them cropping up. Thanks for doing that. The links to http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ are my doing, in similar vein. As Oxford's Robin Lane Fox, who has written excellently on good gardens and on Alexander, said in introducing The Unauthorized Version: "I may not believe in God, but I do believe in the Bible." I too try to write about texts as texts... --Wetman 08:28, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome! Thanks for the comments at blah blah Amos. I replied. See you around. Dizzley (Peter H)

Another intrusive label

{{FACfailed}}

The above dreary notice reminds us not to suggest candidates for whimsical "features"

Hi, could I ask why you inserted that comment at the top of the talk pageTalk:League of Nations? It seems a rather puerile submission (this diff) - could you explain its purpose? For the moment, I'm reverting. Smoddy | ειπετε 22:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTP)

(You may agree, Gentle Reader, that on talkpages for these "failed" articles, it is the ridiculous label that is at the top of the page, not my small sensible rejoinder. I certainly shall not soon suggest a candidate for any feature to be voted upon by such as User:Smoddy. --Wetman 01:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC))

I could not agree with you more! Giano 17:15, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

(pardon the intrusion) If this discussion is concluded, perhaps the "FACfailed" template can be deactivated? It makes this talk page appear in the category listing. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:54, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Simple, but effective edits

Thanks for your clean up edits to Orange Revolution. I've been watching and adding to this article for a while. Thanks for helping out. (User:Mennonot)

Ah, simple but effective! that's me all over! Just a few tweaks to make the narrative run more idiomatically; that's all. Thank you. --Wetman 05:46, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Changed title

Hi, I changed the title of "Culture defines politics" to Cultural imprint on politics. I think this is a great title. Do you think so? Also, [172] has changed the title back. Can you please talk to him. I changed the title to suit other people's concern and that is the only reason. Thanks for your time and consideration and your keep vote. WHEELER 19:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Wetman thanked Wheeler for the change, which cannot be misread as anything but neutral, and set up Cultural imprint on politics/Revision, for work on the text, taking stock of the more sensible reservations in the contentious disputes. Further editing under the new title might leave all the contention behind. 30 Jan.)

Epistle to the Hebrews

Thanks for the changes and links. I made a couple of minor edits: for flow and a typo I think. You dropped a couple of dates from the article. Do you have good reason? — Dizzley (Peter H) 12:50, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the only dates dropped were in the untenable text " From around AD 400 to 1600, the author was traditionally considered to be Paul." Weren't these rather arbitrary dates just someone's way of saying "during the Dark Ages and till humanism took hold..." Waffle. Some specifics of who has attributed the Epistle to Paul might be more evocative: Jerome? Or, put the dates back, if they're meaningful to you... --Wetman 15:39, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC).

Photography of female nudes before 1923

OK, I changed the name from vintage erotica to Photography of female nudes before 1923. That is a more accurate description of the content. 205.217.105.2 17:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Quite right. --Wetman 17:55, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Uza

You inserted:

Modern Muslim readers interpret the episode as a compromise ending the dispute between the pagans of Mecca and Muhammad. However some time later, according to the Qu'ran, Muhammad received a supplementary revelation from Allah that Muhammad had been misled by Satan and the verse should be removed.

Since you inserted according to the Qu'ran in the above quote, I would like to see you prove that claim. Where is that passage in the Qur'an? I would also like to see you cite the source for Modern Muslim readers interpret the episode as a compromise. And John Burton that you wikified is not the same John Burton (the Islamic scholar) Please avoid editing articles when you have no clue what you are doing OneGuy 01:39, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Gentle Reader, you may agree that my text quoted above was well-intentioned and essentially accurate, in spite of this person's tactlessly-expressed challenge. I was trying to interpret the perhaps unintentionally murky recent edits of another such, User:Mustafaa. But, to be sure, who does not interpret the deleted surah, made so notorious as the Satanic Verses, as an early compromise on Mohammed's part? Only those who will at the same time look us right in the eye and swear that the surah never existed in the first place. I would never challenge such a person as this on such a point. The text mentioning Uzza, necessary to this Wikipedia article, was actually deleted— a bold dishonest gesture. The surahs concerning the supplementary revelation that cancels out these are already quoted in the article. Are they not from the Qu'ran? How mystifying that the "right" John Burton has no Wiki entry, but is being displayed as a reference! )

Further discussion on this point, if any, may be found by checking Page history.

Anyone can search google for "John Burton Qur'an" to see how many hits he gets. He is not even a pro-Islamic scholar. Does Wikipedia has articles on all Islamic scholars? Where are the articles on Michael Cook and Patricia Crone? If you have not heard about a scholar, that says more about your knowledge on the topic (you wrote these articles by using Christian evangelical sites as a source anyway, according to external links). There is no Qur'anic verse that can be clearly interpreted to claim that Satanic Verses episode happened. That's just flat out false. I challenge you to post that verse here. The source for the story is Ibn Ishaq, not the Qur'an. If you are familiar with Ibn Ishaq, you should have known that Ibn Ishaq reports all kinds of stories he heard, whether he believes them or not (read the introductions to Ibn Ishaq by Guillaume). And to claim so confidently (as you do above) that this is really a historical fact says a lot about your understanding of early Islamic sources and history. If a major episode like this really happened, there should have been many more references. Why the story is not mentioned in any of the hadith? I suggest you stop being so pompous when you clearly don't know what you are talking about. OneGuy 02:58, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And I commented on something you wrote on talk:Sufism OneGuy 23:21, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

English country house

Hi, I've decided to resume work at English country house all help, advice, contributions and criticism welcome! (from you anyway) poor old Country House is in pieces still but I will leave it for the aggressive one! Besides which there are quite enough English ones to write about. I would quite like to get ECH up to featured article status but don't really have the time. Regarding your comments about the Squirearchy, (so ridiculed by the aggressive one) I've recently read a great book the Purefoy Papers, have a look at Shalstone you would probably enjoy it if you can find a copy, I found mine in a 2nd hand bookshop. The book a collection of letters completely, without really trying, explained all you had to say on the subject, and was fascinating insight into unremarkable minor gentry daily life in them18th century. If you don't have time to contribute perhaps you could at least make sure my facts are all OK. Regards Giano 13:05, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll put it on my watchlist and have a first look now. I have had the Purefoy book for years. Saw it just the other week. I've added to a new Ref. section at ECH Mark Girouard Life in the English Country House probably out in paperback nowadays. That's a book that will make you say "oh yes!" every three or four pages. Gladys Scott-Thompson wrote up the Bedfords in a series of books. Plus there's a book on Erddig (my ancestral homeland, or one of them) with a more Upstairs/Downstairs view. Erddig has no entry at Wikipedia: a living textbook. Plus there has to be a mention of Gosford Park (2001), another textbook, for those with "print issues" --Wetman 21:29, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yep! you're right, I have Life in the English Country House and a great one called 'The perfect Country House' can't be bothered to go upstairs and look, but its by John Betjeman's daughter, Candida "someone-other", that's a great book, because I feel the English country house is not just the Blenheims and "Gosford's" but all the smaller ones as well, the ones when driving through Oxfordshire in an obscure village, one sees a pair of gate piers, and one knows instinctively there is an unrecorded gem just out of reach, so this page will not detract from Country House, if its ever completed!, just concenntrate on a different more humble aspect of the subject. Giano 21:44, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Avebury House ("A'bry" I know, though a Yank, not " 'ave a berry") in Wilts is just as you describe. Did you ever think of Petworth as entre cour et jardin? I've done a tweak and added some books. The social history of the English Country House is the essential here, I agree, and architectural history might be even more downpedalled. Socially it's (1475) 1530 - 1641; 1641 - 1660; 1660 - 1688; 1688 - 1832; 1832 - 1914; 1914 -1939 (1945); since 1945. (Yes?) Breaking it into these blocks helps keep dear old Inigo Jones from intruding eh? --Wetman 22:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think the lead has to be rewritten now to explain the idealogy of small is beautiful, Holkham has to go, as luck would have it, I have to drive to Exeter next Wednesday, and have the whole of Thurs to drive back, think I may take the digital camera with me, shame its winter everywhere's shut. We had an edit conflict earlier I think I blended all your stuff back, hope its OK. I've given the grand architecture a mention, and will now try to explain by example that some of the best and most beautiful houses are often an achitectural disaster, this could be the best chalenge so far!Giano 22:49, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Giano, what do you think of working from the angle of the English country house as a social phenomenon, which architecture had to satisfy, rather than as a sequence of styles. The time blocks I mentioned above are meant to substitute time-blocks of class-continuty for reign-dates. "Neoclassical" in this context is less telling than the recasting of the Library as an added Sitting-Room. "Baroque" is less telling than the sequence of the "Baroque apartment" imitated in such unlikely ealier and more diomestic contexts as Dyrham Park. A double circulation to render servants invisible is a new mid-Victorian requirement, which transcends "neo-Elizabethan" or "Barry classical" categories. What does the Conservatory mean to the patrons who added one? was it just an up-dated Orangery? This way the article won't trace established footsteps. A thought. --Wetman 23:18, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A very good thought,I've just rewritten the lead ( befor I saw your message -it can be changed a 100 times if necc) have you seen though the neoclassical Castle Coole which literally buried the servants!, I am quite keen on emphasising the lesser known, and the aping (badly) of the grander, this can be worked into your social contexts too, the anonymous house I have just added has a wonderful Queen Anne wing, attributed to Inigo, but actually by a small time local architect who used a drainpipe as the central feature. The Queen Anne wing {nice fotos) was bult for an anticipated visit by Queen Anne, she never turned up, and the family's social aspirations and finances were ruined. Then there are the smoking rooms, billiards room new fashion etc) so the house had to change and evolve to trends - is this the direction you are thinking of? Giano 16:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What do you think about moving the page to Manor house, which is more or less vacant at the moment. Then starting off with the original Great Halls and tracing the expansion and evolution from there? Giano 10:43, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Plainspoken is best understood. Though "English country house" does have some subsets, Manor house feels like a blurry one, unless it is specifically the structure at the heart of a manor, being discussed at Manorialism, a genre of structure at least as specific as the Plantation house. "Manor" was an American real-estate dealers' "fancy word" of a generation ago— though in New York State there are genuine manors, granted to Pell, Schuyler, Livington, Mott, Morris, with characteristic stone houses at their core— so it has an unalterably wishful bourgeois lameness in my ear, of be-columned "manor estates". Have I spoilt it for you I hope?... --Wetman 13:55, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear! I had rather forgotten the great manors (great in quantitiy, that is) on your side of the Atlantic, here no one could call their house a manor, and look their neighbours in the eye if it was not, allthough I'm told some do try! We shall have to think again. I'm stressed for time this week - have you some headings in mind, I can't quite picture the skeleton of the page, though I'm not short of ideas - if you had time to map something out, that would be great - then we would both be singing from the same hymn sheet - so to speak. Regards Giano 08:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Giano, this is a particularly unimaginative suggestion, but could we adapt Mark Girouard's chapter headings in Life in the English Country House—I haven't seen it since it first came out&mdash. Headings might take up each type as it appears on the scene. Daily life, seasonal life: architecture only as relating to usage or symbolism, effect on broader society, effect on landscape of England etc. Since this will be a trunk article, on which to hang many architectural branches, some directions would be useful, as

• Domesticated castle
• Hall and solar house
  • Main article is at English hall and solar house (if the section grows unmanageably large)
  • See also European hall and solar house

This way links to established articles like Power house Suburban villa (would they count?) Manor house etc could each get a condensed treatment here and also the usual linkings. --Wetman 09:45, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nation-state

It is the best but not the ideal solution because the early history of [[Nation-state] has been lost. The real error was by Neutrality who did a cut and paste move several weeks ago. - SimonP 04:30, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I don't ever mean to suppress any information. I did some cut-and-paste myself, intending that no good text be lost in the move. So I may be to blame. --Wetman 04:39, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

After a bit of work I managed to reunite the article with its history. - SimonP 04:48, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

I was overlooking the very existence of Nation state/temp. No eggs broken, then. --Wetman 05:00, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lion Kuntz

= lyin' c*nts. RickK 09:25, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)

(Good grief! I was naive enough to ask why "Lion Kuntz" should be an unacceptable Username...)

Shows a pure mind Wetman! Giano 13:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Contact with W

Thanks for the encouraging word in Phoenicians. I've only been playing here for about a month and am still learning the ropes. I suspect I'll become addicted and so log on fairly soon. Unfortunately, I am the type that plays first-- then starts reading directions. But I don't think I've done much damage. I've started several pages linked to pottery. If you have any advice, I'd appreciate it. - W (Anon)

I started by copying the html style I was seeing in the better entries, by clicking "Edit this page" and trying stuff that I previewed for its effect. Log in with a pseudonym if you're shy, like me. Then you can start accumulating a watchlist for the entries you care about. Having a Userpage is an opportunity to puncture a balloon or two. Keep the reader in mind, be responsible, add lots of sources and links to the best webpages, avoid unnecessary interference, shun controversy and have fun— and don't take any tyrannizing! --Wetman 10:17, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice -- I've wandered around and noticed that bullies are not unknown here. I recently logged in. Look forward to working with you. WBardwin 07:28, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) (formerly -W.)

How nice to have a friendly message. I've got quite cross lately... --Wetman 07:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Start!

I have made a start here User:Giano/ECHs where we can edit and play about in comparative privacy. I have put in Mark Girouard's headings which if we keep can be subtly altered/removed/changed/adapted at a later date. Don't take too much notice of the lead or the rubbish under each heading that is just the stuff remotely relevant from the old page. Please feel free to do what you like I am still a bit directionally challenge, but like the best houses the page will evolve (with luck). Regards Giano 13:42, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Naxos, Greece

Hi! As you'll see on the above page, I didn't erase the discussion, I just moved it to where I moved the original Naxos material. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:36, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

My error, I didn't mean to suggest foul play. And do I tend to think that others are as clueless finding their way about as I am,.. --Wetman 00:58, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No problem. Do you think that I should leave the discussion in both places (it seems hardly worth it in this case, but it would be useful to know in case I do it again where it matters)), or delete one? If so, which? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:36, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Nah, leave 'em alone. Best not to complicate the Page history worse than I've already done. ;) --Wetman 09:39, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The "Arabian goddesses"

You state that Uzza, al-Lat, and Manat were believed to be daughters of Hubal. The source for that claim, however, is unclear; the Kitab al-Asnam, which you link to, makes no such claim, and neither does Ibn Ishaq in the Satanic Verses episode. Would you care to provide a suitable source? - Mustafaa 23:01, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(Wetman's response, a careful re-editing of Uzza, adding sources and references is also described at Talk:Uzza. We await Mustafaa's entry Kitab al-Asnam, with which he appears to be thoroughly familiar.)

Thank you for explaining that "According to Ibn al Kalbi's Kitab al-Asnam, the "Book of Idols", the chief idol at pagan Mecca was the moon god, named Hubal, who had three daughters named al-Lat (simply "the goddess"), al-Uzza and Manat, who carried the shears of fate, and thus has been read by some Westerners as a counterpart in Arabia of Atropos." Unfortunately, this statement is false. I searched the full book (available from alwaraq.org in Arabic) for all references to Uzza, and no such claim is present there. Nor is such a claim to be found on its English translation as posted by Christian missionaries. I assume this is just a lapse of memory and that the real source you used will be forthcoming, but in the interim, I hope you don't mind my deleting it.

Also, why do you want to repeat the entire story of the Satanic Verses when it already has its own article? The relevant part of this episode can easily be summarized in a sentence, and a link provided for those interested in the details, which are tangential at best. - Mustafaa 01:54, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oh - I do believe I've figured out what you mean. However, the text is quite clear. "These were also called "the Daughters of Allah [not Hubal]," and were supposed to intercede before God." - Mustafaa 01:56, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

And if you are under the impression that Allah = Hubal, you might want to note that even such evangelists as the Answering Islam site admit that such a theory is speculative at best. - Mustafaa 02:09, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I do not characterize your objections as a mere "personal attack", but as either an exceedingly careless mistake or a dishonorable lie. See Talk:Uzza. - Mustafaa 18:24, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We seem to be running in circles here. You have the fixed idea that these were supposed to be daughters of Hubal (a claim made by no ancient source), and so when you see the claim actually made by the ancient sources that she was the daughter of Allah ("the god", btw, would be al-'Ilâh; Allah may be a contraction of this or may be a borrowing from Syriac Alâhâ), you conclude that Allah = Hubal! Goodbye for now, then; but I leave you with a quote from the Kitab al-Asnam (p. 24) that might help you understand what's going on here:

"Hubal was also the same idol which abu-Sufyan ibn-Harb[63] addressed when he emerged victorious after the battle of Uhud[64], saying: "Hubal, be thou exalted" (i.e. may thy religion triumph); To which the Prophet replied: "Allah is more exalted and more majestic[65]."

Note that "Allah" is their (correct) wording, not mine. - Mustafaa 22:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(You are directed, Gentle Reader, to Talk:Uzza for the details.)--Wetman 22:57, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I found where you might have gotten this strange association of these goddesses with Hubal from: the Nabataeans believed Manat to be Hubal's wife: "and Habul (or Hubal) and his consort Manawãt"[2]. The point is confirmed by Wellhausen as quoted here, who adds that Hubal was the son of al-Lat! - Mustafaa 00:09, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wetman keeps on claiming that only Muslims reject the Satanic Verses story despite a clear reference to Burton given to him on the talk page. Moreover, ibn Ishaq doesn't say that he believes the verse existed. He records a story, and according to that story the verse was once part of the Qur'an. Ibn Ishaq was collecting oral traditions, not necessarily vouching for their truth. In some instances he gives two versions of an event, then concludes that only Allah knows which is true. OneGuy 04:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(There was no response from Wetman.)

Dandy

I'm a month late here, but when you reverted the double redirect put in Dandy on the 14th January, did you mean to revert Violetriga's edit as well? Being the longest running comic in the world and all, I would'a thought the link to The Dandy belonged at the top... BillyH 05:53, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Didn't mean to offend. Don't remember. Do they share anything beyond the name "Dandy"? Ignorant me. --Wetman 06:01, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry, you didn't offend...I'll restore her edit for now, then. BillyH 13:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Insolvency practitioner

Hi Wetman - Brookie here; I deleted your reference to an IP being someone specialising in bankruptcy cases - as the remit is actually much wider than that - and I have widened the remit to formal insolvency cases. Brookie 09:06, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Any edit that leads to increased accuracy and depth is fine with me. --Wetman 09:10, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Of Galicia and personal allegiances

Some time ago you wrote about Galicia that "Its name recalls its ancient inhabitants, eastern Gauls." Were does this information come from? All of the sources I have consulted suggest that "Galicia" comes from "Galic", the Latin name for Halych/Halicz/Galich. It also seems most plausible that the name Halych comes from halka, the Ukrainian word for a jackdaw, the bird which can be seen in the city's coat-of-arms (and also in Galicia's COA). So it looks like your etymology may be right for the Galicia in Spain (as well as for Galatia, Galati, Wales and Cornwall), but not the Galicia in Central Europe! – Kpalion (talk) 15:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good! then at least you know that all the other variants of Galicia are problem-free— and not all jackdaws then? But I'm to believe that all the other etymologies are irrelevant in just this one very special Slavic case. Those sources you have consulted: you have entered them into "References" at the article, I hope. Or perhaps not: it's your call. Consider: is it just barely possible that local post-Habsburg and pro-Ukrainian motivations are being inflicted on Wikipedia because nationalists identify "Galicia" with hated pre- and post-1917 regimes? Not to argue about, just to consider in the privacy of your own home. You may find that archaeologists have identified La Tene sites in the area; you get my drift. You'll be surprised when you discover how recent that city coat-of-arms is: when was it granted? 16th century? or 19th century. Worth looking into. Etymologies have been the ludibria of spin-doctors since before the days of Isidore of Seville. But you know that. So, what is the earliest language in that area? Why wouldn't it be said that "Halych" is a development of the Latin "Galicia" similar to the comparable examples you note from all over Europe and Anatolia? Consider, what might be a local motivation for this reversal in this one case?

Why not make a search for the earliest use of "Galicia" in a document, perhaps a charter, and put it in the article? It's surely quoted in those sources: or if not, then that might be a warning sign your sources are touched by propaganda. As for me, all I'm interested in is honest history. Otherwise, why should I bother at all with Galicia and its inhabitants, who are of absolutely no personal concern to me? --Wetman 21:36, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

So, if I get your point right, the name "Halych" is actually of ancient Celtic origin, and its association with a jackdaw is a later, Slavic folk etymology? That may make sense.

Not exactly. The initial aspirate "h" is often a transformation of initial hard g, guttural ch or k sounds (such as in late Latin "Galicia"). You're probably familiar with other examples. A Celtic name would have to be unknown: a La Tene presence however would not be unexpected: I'm ignorant here of local archaeology let me add.

What doesn't make sense to me is that "The ancient but long-disused name 'Galicia' was revived by the Austro-Hungarian monarchy to recall its former inhabitants, the eastern Gauls." I mean, why would the Austrians (ie Germans) want to recall the Celtic presence in the territories they took from Poland in 1772?

Not "Austrians": Habsburgs. Habsburgs are not Austrians: Austria is Habsburg. Why a Habsburg bureaucracy's reach to revive a name? Simple. Not Slavic. A major Habsburg problem, solved by jumping right over those troublesome Slavic locals and finding a less problematic name from a Latinate Imperial past. Or, no matter, a pretended past, for didn't Romans stop at the Carpathians, and was this region even momentarily Carolingian? I'm ignorant. But no wonder this "Galicia" term is resented now!

The earliest use of the Latin name "Galicia" that I know of is the style used by king Andrew II of Hungary in the 13th century. It's hardly possible for Latin to be used in Halych-Volhynia before that, since there hadn't been any Romans or Catholics in the area before.

There ya go! Latin is forever the language of empowering legitimacy. Andrew uses it because he is rex not merely a hetman. Habsburgs uses it for similar connotations. Identify the document with "Galicia" and refer to it directly in the article: if it's right in the main court chronicle of Andrew's reign, it might be noticed in a good biography or history.

I admit I don't know how old or recent the COA of Halych is. – Kpalion (talk) 22:39, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Coats of arms for cities are a late (decadent?) development of heraldry. An early symbol on a banner was the lion of Venice. Lübeck was granted the Imperial eagle in the 13th century. But heraldic jackdaws are a sentimental heraldic charge, not one derived from the arms or symbol of a patron (religious or secular) as earlier ones always are.

Any specifics you come up with, do work them into the text, won't you? --Wetman 00:00, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Anglian knight

Hi - thanks for you additions to Anglia knight - on display in Norwich - I saw it last summer :) -- ALoan (Talk) 12:08, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I came upon it through the illustration. Nice! --Wetman 12:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Flash digital photo through glass - less than ideal! But thanks. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:15, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Paul rimmer

Just to let you know: Non-notability is not one of the 11 speedy deletion criteria. If you see something whose notability you are unsure of again, slap a {{cleanup-importance}} on it. Uncle G 13:28, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Assume good faith

I saw your comments on Wikipedia:Assume good faith/Vote. You're right, the page did need to say that the assumption of good faith is supposed to be a starting point, not a dogma. I tried to make that a bit clearer.

I wanted to remind you, though, that this is a wiki. If you thought the page had a serious problem, you should have just changed it yourself. As it is, I'd appreciate your feedback (and edits, if you can improve it) on the current version of Assume good faith. Isomorphic 16:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Taking your advice, I've added just the phrase "but learn from experience." I don't suppose this will be generally liked. --Wetman 19:49, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the edits. Looks fine to me. I don't think anyone wants "assume good faith" to mean that you have your head in the sand. I have no patience for editors who spend their time on Wikipedia whining, lying, and seeing how much they can get away with (in fact, see my rant on this subject.) I just don't like it when someone assumes the worst from the start. Isomorphic 22:25, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Auger article

Thanks for the addition of the artwork by Duran. It really enhances the article, which was otherwise pretty dry. I found reading your user page rather enjoyable as well. --69.5.156.155 17:36, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) (aka lloydd)

Galicia again

I made some edits about the origin to Galicia's name: Galicia (Central Europe)#Origin and variations of the name. Please tell me if you like it. – Kpalion (talk) 16:12, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

em dashes

I commend you on your consistent use of em dashes where they are appropriate. You have obviously taken some time to learn how the different dashes are used, which i find refreshing in an community where most people just use spaced hyphens. However, i've noticed that you often leave a space to the right of your dashes. The most common way to use an em dash is to put no spaces on either side of it. There is a minority who prefer to put a space on each side, but i don't believe putting a space on one side (as you would with a comma) has any precedent. I've removed spaces from the right of a few of your dashes. Could you please try to be more careful with the spacing in the future? foobaz·✐ 09:37, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

P.S. A week ago you added a red link to Four continents to Seven seas. As you can see, that link is no longer red. I hope you like the article i put there!

Good start on Four continents: they are a major theme in the arts from the 16th century to Daniel Chester French's seated groups here in the Federal Customs House in NYC: porcelain groups, painted ceiling decorations, tapestry sets—a history in itself. I like the dash—a signal that the flow is about to be broken—and I will try not to add "the space that irritates". --Wetman 10:09, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(N)POV edits to Modernism (Roman Catholicism)

Please see my comments on Talk:Modernism (Roman Catholicism). If you object to part of my changes, please edit those parts rather than reverting everything including added links, corrected dates and misspellings, etc. Thanks. --Jim Henry 18:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a good point. I hastened to correct my Errors, but Foobaz beat me to it. --Wetman 20:12, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

User:Xebeth

She's not creating junk, she's fixing the results of a page-move vandal. Noel (talk) 20:57, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, and even if I was creating junk, personal attacks aren't necessary. Xezbeth 21:06, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

(I had just spend half an hour ensuring that all the edits of two longterm vandals had been safely reverted, and then I came upon the title Bull (mythology) is stupid!, with only Xezbeth's credit in its Page history and I credited it to her invention. An error. But to assume that such an editor is a child, without even actually saying so, is scarcely an attack. I assure you I have no personal interest in Xezbeth whatsoever: our interests apparently don't coincide. --Wetman 21:22, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Assuming I was a child, or even a female called Elizabeth, isn't what I had a problem with. It's just that "Why are you indoors today? Why not play outside?" sounds a little belligerent to me. Xezbeth 21:26, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

"Dismissive" might be the word you are laboring after.--Wetman

Antonio Ghislanzoni

Hi, care to add anything to Antonio Ghislanzoni? Cheers, -- Viajero 13:37, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wish I could. I had no idea he was so colorful, from the Verdi biography I have here. You constantly select interesting figures for Wikipedia. --Wetman 18:59, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Classical definition

The Wikipedian community has saw fit to delete The Classical definition of republic. I found more corraborating evidence and, on the Votes for Undeletion, They are still voting to keep it deleted. I think this is highly unfair. Is there a cabal going around voting things off that they don't like? I have put external link to Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic and they delete that also. It has been deleted twice from Republic. What's going on here? Wikipedia is not "Free and Open-Content". There is a group controlling what gets said around here. I have been reading about "Republics" all my life. I even quote from a Modern Scholary work that used the term "Classical Republic". And they still delete. Something is not right here. WHEELER 14:59, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Classical definition

The Wikipedian community has saw fit to delete The Classical definition of republic. I found more corraborating evidence and, on the Votes for Undeletion, They are still voting to keep it deleted. I think this is highly unfair. Is there a cabal going around voting things off that they don't like? I have put external link to Wikinfo:Classical definition of republic and they delete that also. It has been deleted twice from Republic. What's going on here? Wikipedia is not "Free and Open-Content". There is a group controlling what gets said around here. I have been reading about "Republics" all my life. I even quote from a Modern Scholary work that used the term "Classical Republic". And they still delete. Something is not right here. WHEELER 14:57, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Edict of Nantes

Tnanks for your comment on my Edict of Nantes edit: I appreciate your support. Pedant17 21:37, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

John Vanbrugh

Thanks. Over to the night shift, we're all off to bed now! Giano 22:13, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Hmm. I think your emendation (at Nation-state) "eliminating any potential trouble over Northern Ireland", but giving the phrase

the United Kingdom, which consists of four nations England, Scotland, Wales and those of the Irish that are in Northern Ireland

actually makes trouble far more likely!!

Very many of the "Irish that are in Northern Ireland" (if by that you mean the Nationalist community) -- if not most, to judge from their recent voting record -- do not recognize that any part of the Irish nation belongs to the United Kingdom.

Very many of the Unionist community -- if not most, to judge from their recent voting record -- do not recognize that they are Irish or belong to any part of the Irish nation.

I think that my previous formulation (to the effect that the "nationality"/"nationhood" of Northern Ireland is disputed) was less controversial. The fact that there is a dispute is indisputable! -- Picapica 16:31, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(There was no response from Wetman.)

Broadway Melody

Hi. When you fixed the Beguine link on Broadway Melody of 1940, were you able to see the image that I had added earlier? For some reason it's coming up as "missing link" but it was working for awhile. 23skidoo 07:16, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) I tweaked the html, giving thumb|right|240px| instead of thumb|240px|right| and it's working for me. For you? --Wetman 10:10, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How to read a poem

Thanks for suggesting Sea Surface, Full of Clouds, which was new to me. It is wonderful for its self-reference and its evocation. I imagine that "the sea poured brilliant iris on the glistening blue" will stay with me forever. --Theo (Talk) 11:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

^1 Article now moved to Poetry analysis. --Theo (Talk) 11:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wallace Stevens, the least-read great American poet! A lot of his poetry is about poetic vision. Wikipedia has an entry for Tennyson's The Kraken and Arnold's Dover Beach... but all poetry gains by reading aloud I guess. --Wetman 16:16, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not all poetry: concrete poetry, for example, is best seen, but I take your point. --Theo (Talk) 16:41, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Trouble over Arete (virtue)

I am having trouble with a simonP. I edit Arete (virtue) and he immediately reverts the edits. Him and his friends have deleted [Classical definition of republic] and after the many facts and the quoting of material they will not acknowledge they won't even let an external link and the talk is ongoing at Talk:Republic. This man doesn't know what he is doing. I ask that someone step in and stop this please. This man has no expertise in the classical field. He is an anonymous user. Please see also Talk:Arete (virtue).WHEELER 17:33, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I went through the edit history and reinserted essential material you had contributed that was edited out by the others. Check the edit history and see how I made the assertions more colorless. I put in a word for toleration at Talk:Arete (virtue). The history of ideas is the most difficult history to understand: they see no development, just a dictionary definition. Should Themis be mentioned as the patroness of arete? --Wetman 22:10, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes it should and also be added to the disambig page. You can probably put Themis in a Miscellania section.WHEELER 15:37, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Need help

Two articles are up for deletion: one is specific for Classical studies, Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Vanavsos and the other is Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Family/State_paradigm. Can I ask for you help in these matters. Thanks.WHEELER 15:08, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I left a note at the discussion over Vanavsos and left the following at the Talk page for Family/State paradigm: "I have adapted WHEELER's text en bloc to add some weight to the jejune article Paternalism, which seemed to be sketching out a simple-minded context for abortion issues. I toned down WHEELER's characteristically emphatic tone and eliminated all claims that might be attacked as a POV that did not suit our prejudices. I think that when one googles "Family/State paradigm", comes up with no "hits" and attempts on that basis to efface the entry, perhaps there is more motivating force than immediately meets the eye."

See how I edited your text and removed material that could be construed as editorial asides in your own voice. The result is a report rather than an essay. My general advice is, use your ideas to improve existing entries. Don't set up new articles. I also think that using all-caps in WHEELER creates initial resistance (I speak from my own experience): why not log in afresh as a virgin, with a low-profile name! --Wetman 21:21, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Athenaeum club

Great changes to my text ... your version flows better and is clearer. I suspect that piuano nobile is a typo or am I confused? --Theo (Talk) 13:33, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nuo, puiano nuobile is nuot a tuypo. --Wetman 19:01, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Huo! Huo! Huo! :-) --19:25, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Carpini

You should remember, that I can't upload pages in few seconds. You may be conviced that tt:Carpini exist. Regarts, --Untifler 21:11, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good! good! I was disappointed not to have the link work. since it was up there at the top of the page. --Wetman 21:56, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Renaming Vanavsos

I strongly urge you to reread the article because I made serious introductory changes and look at my reasoning to "not change" the title of the work at the top of the VFD page. Please see vanavsos and I ask that you "not ask for a change in title".WHEELER 17:08, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The title does become appropriate— after one has read the article, but it's not a plain, obvious label that a Wikipedia reader would connect to in a "See also" list. Don't get such a personal involvement in every detail of an article that has been yours in the creating. People will be adding to it and you have to let some stuff go. And, as we used to say in school, ILLEGITIMI NON CARBORVNDVM —"Don't let the bastards wear you down";). --Wetman 22:39, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Book of Abraham/De-accessioned papyri from the Metropolitan Museum of Art?

I responded to your question/comment at Book of Abraham. Hope this context is helpful, but the statement is correct. Happy editing... -Visorstuff 17:04, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Colley Cibber

Thanks very much for your flattering vote for the old fraud! Bishonen | Talk 17:33, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

National Patrimony

Good job on your addition to Patrimony; not an aspect I had considered. --Theo (Talk) 11:42, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Corinthian Capital

It is from a 17th century (?) publication of Palladio. Don't have the book with me now, will try to remember to look it up for you later. Eoghanacht 01:56, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Not Vitruvius. Definitely Palladio. Also, I have more pix of Guardia Sanframondi if you are interested. Would rather not post the URL, though. I'll figure something out to let you know where they are. Eoghanacht 02:21, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Don't forget, then! (Colen Campbell or Giacomo Leoni?) I thought one of the illus. of flagellants made a good point at Flagellants, that the phenomenon is not merely medieval. But I don't need to see more, really. --Wetman 02:50, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Isaac Ware's "Palladio's Four Books..." London 1738. Plate 70. Eoghanacht 14:42, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

I placed it at Capital (architecture), with the information it needed. Excellent! excellent! --Wetman 22:48, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

cavalli-sforza

hi Wetman, I'm sorry, I've changed the copyright tag on Image:Cavalli-SforzaMap.jpg, I can't conceive how this map could be in the PD, dating from 1994. regards, dab (ᛏ) 17:08, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From the glossy paper cover of the book, is my understanding. Check illus. at http://www.amazon.com . As much in the PD as any Céline Dion album cover! --Wetman 17:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

afaik, album (and book) covers are the classic example for Template:fairuse (provided the resolution is reasonably lower than that of the original). dab (ᛏ) 18:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

KBE postnomials for Alan Greenspan?

I quote from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles):

Other non-royal names: 4. [...] Honorary titles should not be used at all, but the appropriate post-nominal letters or explanation should be in the article. This Bob Geldof is not "Sir Bob Geldof" in the title and is "Bob Geldof KBE (hon.)" in the text. Post-nominals should not be used for non-Commonwealth or former British Empire citizens as their use outside a Commonwealth context are extremely rare. [my emphasis]

I interpret this as meaning that the article on Alan Greenspan should not include (KBE) in the introduction paragraph. I presume you interpret this as refereing solely to the name of the article itself? —Gabbe 17:44, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

The "naming conventions" are the conventions for giving names to articles. Thus an article title is Winston Churchill, not Sir Winston Churchill. That article begins "The Right Honourable Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill KG, OM, CH, FRS (November 30, 1874 – January 24, 1965) was a British politician..." The guideline does say "the appropriate post-nominal letters or explanation should be in the article." They need to be mentioned only once, then dropped. But a guideline is no more than a guide to common sense. Bury the KBE as deep in the text as you like. It's not an issue for me. --Wetman 23:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Augustus Saint-Gaudens

Born Dublin, died New Hampshire, lived and worked in the states, so both Irish Sculptor and United States Sculptor appropriate categories btw.Notjim 11:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

...emigrated at the age of six months. The "Irish school of scupture" needs an article from Notjim. --Wetman 12:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

sure, i agree he is much more an american sculptor than an irish one, but irish born artist who lived abroad always have a big influence here and so are useful to have in the category; this is still true, Sean Scully is an important influence on the irish art scene although he left ireland at four. as for an irish school of sculpture article, its on the long list, there isn't a propert irish art article yet, i am working of getting the red out of the List of Irish artists first. i will take a picture of saint-gaudens parnell sculpture first. Notjim 16:15, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Parnell monument is not well known: excellent! He was at work on it when he died. His studio finished it. --Wetman 16:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nazarene article

Hi. As you've edited the Nazarene article in the past, I was wondering if you could take a look at it again. An anonymous IP editor has been persistently attempting to re-write it in what I consider to be an highly POV and unattributed way. Any comments etc. would be welcome there. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:36, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Very dispiriting. What's the connection with Zestauferov of unwelcome memory? Is the answer For a modern self-styled Nazarene movement, see Raanana Beth Din Netzarim. Or whatever they are using. Don't struggle, say I: give everyone their own playpen. --Wetman 21:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

St. Patrick's Day

I don't know if you ever ended up seeing any pictures of rivers dyed green, so I thought you might be interested in a few photographs I took: Image:Chicago River dyed green, focus on river.jpg, Image:Chicago River dyed green, buildings more prominent.jpg, and Image:Chicago River, dye travelling upstream.jpg — just in case you were curious how they looked. If not, feel free to ignore this. — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:19, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Begorrah! and I'd never have believed it without a photo! --Wetman 07:35, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry—it is a rather odd thing to do. And the Chicago River looks kind of green the whole year round, anyway. I especially liked the picture of the dye creeping upstream, but I don't know if it adds as much as seeing the whole river dyed. Anyway, hope you enjoyed the pictures. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. With the Chicago River, "upstream" is hard to determine, one hears. --Wetman 23:33, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Book of Esther

Most readers of Book of Esther are religous who believe that these events did take place.--PinchasC 01:42, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Additionaly why did you remove the link to the translation with Rashi's commentory of the Book of Esther?--PinchasC 01:46, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Most" readers includes many beyond this rather constricted cultural horizon. The specialized POV of some Christian sects who take every word literally does not represent the neutral breadth of culture Wikipedia represents. I certainly did not intend to remove any exterior link, especially to a historical commentary. My error. if I did. --Wetman 02:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have added subsections so that the literalists and the rest—each simply designated "some readers"—may each discuss Esther in their terms. What a brilliant solution! --Wetman 03:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Jewish Agency For Israel, Department for Jewish Zionist Education, Pedagogic Center has several web pages devoted to Purim. The Director is Dr. Motti Friedman. The Agency discusses the connection of Mordecai to Marduke, and Esther to Ishtar at great length. None of those pages suggest that their scholars have dismissed or discredited the idea. Do these other scholars have any names? See: http://www.jafi.org.il/education/jewish/purim3.html and: http://www.jafi.org.il/education/jewish/purim2.html

epigraph

I just read every article in Category:Chefs and its subcategories, and that article was the only one to have an epigraph. It is also not consistent with the Wikipedia:Manual of style, which you might like to read, as it is our guide to building a professional encyclopedia. Gentgeen 06:27, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Wikipedia:Manual of style says nothing about epigraphs, unless I have missed the section. Perhaps you'd have a look yourself. Do point it out for me. A good piece of advice, even for an administrator, is Avoid unnecessary interference. Your removal of an epigraph to a pointless little "quotes" section does not help the reader or improve Wikipedia. It's just tiresome interference that has nothing to do with "professionalizing" anything.Now you know. --Wetman 06:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If possible, make the title the subject of the first sentence of the article. In any case the title should appear in the first sentence. The first time the title is mentioned in the article, put it in bold using three apostrophes. (from WP:MoS#Article_titles) The epigraph violated all three of those guidelines. Gentgeen 06:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(This person has never seen an epigraph. There was no further comment from Wetman.)

Settler (disambiguation) on Speedy

Hi Wetman,

You've slapped Settler (disambiguation) with a speedy tag, which left me puzzled because it seems like a legitimate disamb page to me . I've removed the tag, if you disagree with this please feel free to let me know why on my talkpage, or list it on VFD instead. :)

- Mailer Diablo 11:20, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

sure! if you think those are disambiguations for Settler, go for it! no problem. Add Setter, too: that's also pretty close! --Wetman 11:42, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Esther on peer review

Hi, Wetman, have you considered moving your request re Book of Esther to WP:RFC (please see [3]), or would you mind if I moved it? I really doubt that peer review will help, it usually doesn't for Esther's kind of problem. Bishonen | Talk 10:19, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What a good idea. I'm unaware of all these Courts of Appeal in the corridors of Power at Wikipedia, partly because, after a couple of unpleasant encounters, I usually take a page off my Watchlist rather than continue distasteful contacts. Do the thing! --Wetman 10:38, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I hear you, in fact I try to avoid having anything of remotely religious interest on my watchlist in the first place, as that is apparently the most acrimonious of subjects. I have done the deed, and also put a note on Talk:Book of Esther. Bishonen | Talk 16:09, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Check it out

We have an unmitigated disaster on our hands. Please check out republic. And I don't know what I am talking about.WHEELER 16:29, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bolsena vs. Lake Bolsena

(In re Velzna). Even Homer nods, as they say; and I do think that's wha' happened to you here; yet I'm loath to change it back, lest it turn out that you know something I don't, as you often do? The loose information I have, without ever having investigated the matter very closely nor having been to Bolsena, is that it's indeed the town though, rather than the lake, that the Velzna-identifiers are talking about. Not too serious (face it, how many people read these articles anyway?) but now I'm curious and wondering which one of us missed something! Best, Bill 22:39, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did I add "The Romans called it Lacus Volsinii, adapting the Etruscan name, Velzna"? That's the loose connection in the Velzna=maybe=Volsinii=Bolsena chain, and the article should be clearer about it. Change it back. Or even better change it forward! Omigod! "Bill" is Bill Thayer, the Emperor of Roman Topography. Good grief man: fix my gaffe!--Wetman 22:55, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

At best a mere clarissimus, alas. OK, relieved, him change it back. B, B 5:31 Chicago time, 19 Mar 2005

Manuel Chrysoloras edit

I am uncertain as to why you removed the last edit there. The bit about his being the traditional founder of Kappa Sigma is generally accepted by historians and is openly discussed by the fraternity. At the very least, historical records have traced a group calling itself "Kappa Sigma" to Bologna in the 1400s, and certain statements by Chrysoloras' students indicate strongly that he was at least a leader, if not the founder. Other wiki pages (Kappa Sigma, antipope John XXIII) even state this. It is not a fraternal secret, and it is independently verifiable. So why the deletion? Ewok 19:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No historical records trace a group calling itself "Kappa Sigma" to Bologna in the quattrocento. All fraternities and lodges have this kind of "antique" mumbo-jumbo, "ancient and honorable order of Hibernians" and the Shriners and the like. The official Kappa Sigma fraternity "history" might be directly quoted, in a neutral context. "Generally accepted by historians" is not true. --Wetman 19:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fine, a fair position. I understand that as soon as you let one group start with the shaky legends, all the others will too. I would in this specific instance, however, direct your attention to a collection of 14th-15th century Italian pottery in the Benaki Art Museum in Athens, Greece. One piece on display, a wine jug traced to the Bologna area, bears the letters ΚΣ and includes a brief poem in ancient Greek about brotherhood and the virtue of moderation. Admittedly, "brotherhood" and "moderation" are not exactly uncommon themes in Greek culture, and it is entirely possible that ΚΣ is the shorthand name for a really popular madrigal or something. However, it jives with the time period and with the idea of a brotherhood founded by the first generation of ancient Greek students in Renaissance Italy. And there are other traditions of the fraternity (Cossa's priacy, Chrysoloras' presence) that are corroborated by established history. I mean, if you wrote your doctoral thesis on "Groups that Were and Were Not in Bologna in the Quattrocento" feel free to tell me to shut up and play with the dolls, but otherwise there's a certain authoritarian finality to your declaration of "NO WAY NO HOW" that is less than compelling in light of evidence that suggests at least a possibility otherwise. -Ewok 20:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think the Benaki Museum went in for Italian maiolica. I still don't. Is there actually any Italian maiolica in their collection? It is historically impossible that a ceramic made anywhere near Bologna in the 15th century should have a painted motto (never a poem), written in Greek. Historically impossible. The Wikipedia entry Manuel Chrysoloras will tell you why. A brief on-line history of US fraternities I've added to College fraternity will give you the social background to the founding of Kappa Sigma, and suggest to you why it had to be older than those Yankee fraternities. There is no way I could possibly bridge the cultural abyss here; to the wise, however, a word is sufficient. --Wetman 21:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Night (book)

Wetman, thank you for putting Night up for featured-article status! That was a surprise for me when I came online today. ;-) A nice one, though. I appreciate your vote of confidence. Best, SlimVirgin 15:41, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/67.86.174.158

I've started an RFC about the anonymous user who has been adding anti-semitic remarks to Pontius Pilate. Since you attempted to resolve the dispute, I'd appreciate if you'd certify the RFC. It's available at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/67.86.174.158. Thanks. Rhobite 03:14, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sibylline Books edit

you updated a quote and provided a link "perry 18??'. that is website I used but I cannot find out how you decided it belonged to Perry. I'd like to know so that I link to any future entries I Make. thanks (67.34.213.141 08:28, 21 Mar 2005)

Oop, I got "Perry" for Terry: Nevertheless, the title page is at [4] I worked back from the citation. --Wetman 08:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)