User:Doug Coldwell/Sandboxes/Archive 3

Latin translation please

Could I please get a translation of this:

Frigida Francifci tegit hic lapis offa Petrarcae
Sufcipe, Virgo parens, animam: fate Virgine parce;

Feffaque jam terris coeli requiefcat in arce.

Thanks, --Doug ^talk 19:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You can find a published translation of these oddly-rhyming lines here (from which you can also correct the text which you've mistranscribed; see long s). The translation is pretty literal but omits "cold bones" and "in the citadel of heaven." Wareh 19:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The Petrarch Gallery translates it thus:

This stone covers the cold remains of Francesco Petrarca.

Embrace, oh Virgin Mother, his soul, and you who are born of the Virgin forgive it,

and already tired of the earth, may it rest in the high heavens.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.112.135.118 (talk • contribs)

(Edit conflict) I think you've been looking at a Renaissance document that uses the long s. You want:

Frigida Francisci tegit hic lapis ossa Petrarcae
Suscipe, Virgo parens, animam: sate Virgine parce;

Fessaque jam terris coeli requiescat in arce.

According to http://www.eapoe.org/WorkS/misc/pnkdia.htm, this is Francescuolo da Brossano's inscription on Petrarch's tomb. My rough-and-ready translation is:

This stone covers the cold bones of Francesco Petrarch
Virgin Mother, receive his soul: You Who were born to the Virgin, spare it;

And let it, which was worn out by the world, now rest in the citadel of heaven.

And there's nothing odd about the rhyme if you use the Italianate pronunciation of Latin: all three lines end in the sequence [artʃe]. —Angr 20:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What I thought was slightly odd was precisely the fact that these classicizing hexameters rhyme (perfectly). That's something I usually associate with very unclassical, stress-based medieval forms of poetry. I don't know enough to suggest that there's anything objectively weird about the style of rhyming, though. Wareh 20:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

In other words, what's odd (considering when it was written) is the rhythm, not the rhyme! :p BTW, the Google Books link you provided is apparently another instance of one that can't viewed from outside the U.S. I can't see the quote on that page, anyhow. —Angr 20:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would have expected classicizing verse with no rhyme, given the return to antiquity professed by the humanists. Wareh 20:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the translations. The scanned in version I was going from was very blurry.--Doug ^talk 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Latin as a spoken language

Since John Wycliffe was an Oxford scholar then he would have known Latin very well, perhaps as much as English. My understanding is that if a person knew Latin, that it not only was a language the Church used in it writings (i.e. Bible, documents), but that it would have been actually spoken among the European scholars of the Fourteenth Century - especially if that was the only language in common among themselves. Is that correct?--Doug ^talk 13:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In the fourteenth century, Latin, or more precisely, Medieval Latin or Renaissance Latin, was certainly a spoken language used as a lingua franca by Europeans who spoke different native languages. This was certainly true of 14th-century scholars, most of whom were also in some way connected with the Church, whose official language was also Latin. Marco polo 15:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Latin continued to be a spoken language for centuries; it's how George I communicated with his Privy Council, when he did. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass was conducted in Latin and the pope recently lifted the restrictions on this - http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Pope_to_lift_restrictions_on_Latin_Mass. Lanfear's Bane

Latin was a pretty standard academic language into the 19th century (Newton and Gauss both wrote important works in Latin) and really only fell into decline in the 20th century. For Wycliffe, it's entirely possible that he may have actually spent more time speaking Latin than English. There were some missionary priests during the Elizabethan era who were educated on the continent and spoke more Latin than English (although that's also an extreme case). It explains some of the odd Latinisms in the Douay-Rheims translation of the bible. As an aside, the mass that Wycliffe would have celebrated was not the Tridentine mass, but more likely the Sarum Rite. The Tridentine mass was codified by the Council of Trent in the 16th century, long after Wycliffe had died. Donald Hosek 17:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

And Linnaeus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to presume that Petrarch spoke and wrote then in the Renaissance Latin. Which Latin would Wycliffe have known, both?--Doug ^talk 16:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Arg, people keep editing when I'm editing. Wycliffe would have known the Latin of his era. He would have had no problem reading classical latin, and over time, the structures of Latin became simpler (so it's much easier to read, say, any church document of the late middle ages than it is to read Virgil or Cicero. Caesar, on the other hand is pretty straightforward. What exactly are you trying to get at with this series of questions? I've grown intrigued (although if it turns out that this is some convoluted scheme to get out of a speeding ticket, I'm going to be PO'd). Donald Hosek 17:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have the vocabulary; Wyclif's Latin might have included a lot of jargon, depending on the subject. But there's not really that much difference; more a matter of style, pronunciation, and choices of spelling than anything else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Well -----> history has shown that Wycliffe and Petrarch never contacted each other, however lived in the same time periods. Hypothetically (keep in mind I am not saying it is so), what if Petrarch and Wycliffe met. Petrarch did not know English, Wycliffe did not know Italian nor French --> however they both knew the common language of Latin. Then (hypothetically) they could communicate. Now I know there might be some that will get excited about this "hypothetical example", however keep in mind I said hypothetical. In this example then, it looks like to me they could have easily communicated, since the common language is Latin (which they both knew). See, it had nothing to do with a speeding ticket, which obviously will be real easy to settle compared to this "hypothetical example" I just threw out. What do you think, is it not possible then with the common language being Latin they could have communicated with each other? Both Wycliffe and Petrarch knew Latin extremely well, so to me it seems possible (should they have ever met, which history said they did not).--Doug ^talk 17:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Wycliffe's Latin would have been transitional between Medieval and Renaissance Latin. The distinction between the two is not much more than stylistic. I find it hard to imagine that Wycliffe would have spoken more Latin than English. I think that spoken Latin would have been reserved for formal occasions (e.g. lectures) or conversation with foreigners. Wycliffe was born and raised in England and spent virtually his whole life in England. Most of his colleagues at Oxford would have been English. It is hard to imagine that they would have used Latin for everyday conversation when they all spoke (Middle) English as their first language. On the other hand, it would not be surprising for Oxford scholars to mix Latin phrases into their English conversation. Marco polo 17:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

So it looks like (bottomline) in my "hypothetical example" that Petrarch and Wycliffe could have easily communicated with each other, since both had this common language of Latin. In my "hypothetical example" this would have been where they had conversations with foreigners , since each would have been a foreigner to the other - especially since neither had a common language with each other outside of Latin. I don't know about Wycliffe speaking Latin more than English, however Wycliffe knew Latin very well. Also Petrarch knew Latin very well, so bottomline I don't see that they would have had any problem communicating with each other (should they have ever met). Now according to history Wycliffe never left England and Petrarch never visited England, so this of course could not have happened ---> but in my "hypothetical example" they could have in fact communicated with each other very well.--Doug ^talk 19:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

A small quibble: Wycliffe actually did leave England at least once, according to our biography, to attend a peace conference in Bruges, Flanders (present-day Belgium). However, Petrarch did not attend that conference, so far as we know. Marco polo 19:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

You happened to have hit upon something very interesting. It looks like Wycliffe was at this conference in Bruges on July 26, 1374. According to history, Petrarch died July 19 in his 69th year - which just happens to be a week before! If I am not mistaken, didn't Petrarch visit this area, perhaps more than once in his life? So while it may be "a small quibble" it is an important fact - if nothing else other than a pure coincidence. Now continuing with my "hypothetical example" - what if history had not recorded that Petrarch had not died then and he met up with Wycliffe there in Flanders (an area within a week's travel), could they have not easily communicated with each other. What if history said instead that Petrarch died in Arquà Petrarca, where coincidently Petrarch was buried for the second time in 1380. Again, I'm sure there will be some people that will get excited over this, however keep in mind this is just a "hypothetical example". The point I am making is that ""hypothetically" Petrarch and Wycliffe could have easily communicated with each other - had they met. However history does not record such an event, so it is meaningless that Wyclif's Bible came out in 1382 (which is the first English version of the New Testament).--Doug ^talk 21:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"Easily" may be stretching it. They could have easily corresponded writing in Latin (although Petrarch probably would have written much more classically-influenced Latin), but if they were able to speak it fluently, and they may not have been, they may have had wildly different accents and may not have been able to completely understand each other. Adam Bishop 01:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Doug, just so that I'm clear, are you saying that your example is hypothetical? :) -- JackofOz 02:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, since history has recorded that Petrarch died on the evening of July 19, 1374 (when he was 69 years old). He just happened to have been moved and buried again in 1380 at Arquà Petrarca (that's purely coincidential). Just because Wyclif's Bible came out in 1382 - that would again be just coincidential! Bottomline, in my "hypothetical example", Petrarch and Wycliffe could have in fact communicated with each other - had they met, which history has recorded they did not. Just because the only time Wycliffe left England was to go to Flanders, which happened to be one week after Petrarch died - that has nothing to do with anything, it is just coincidential. Bruges just happens to be within a week's travel from where Petrarch died - again purely coincidential. Flanders just happens to be an area Petrarch previously visited - coincidential. Yes, let me make it perfectly clear, I am saying "hypothetical." It's got to be hypothetical, because history has recorded Petrarch died July 19, 1374. History also records that it was his daughter Francesca that found him at his desk with a pen in hand and Laura in his heart. History records that it was Francescuolo da Brossano who was the executor of his estate - which of course has nothing to do with this at all. So I hope I have made myself clear on this: these 600 year old facts that just happen to look coincidential are just that - purely coincidential. The "hypothetical example" of Wycliffe and Petrarch being able to communicate with each other since they both knew Latin very well - is just a hypothetical example, nothing more. If you are thinking something different (whatever that may be) that would be up to you to conclude - my examples are just hypothetical and coincidential. History has recorded certain events and certain dates, so I will have to go with this "recorded history" since that certainly can not be wrong. Another coincidence is that nowhere in recorded history does it say Wyclif's Bible came out before 1380. Let's just say "interesting" - and certainly coincidential, nothing more than that. Since the consenses is that the "Babylonian Captivity" (Petrarch's coined phrase) of the Avignon papacy was for 69 years (1308 - 1377) would be coincidential. If I were you, I would not look into this and investigate it further - since all these are just merely coincidences - especially the events of Wycliffe after his trip to Bruges in 1374. It seems to me that Wycliffe and Petrarch were both opponents of the Avignon system and would have been considered ecclesiastical annoyances. It looks like to me they had very similar viewpoints they could have shared. History has recorded however that they never met - so obviously they could not have shared these.--Doug ^talk 13:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is coincidental at all, it's just a bunch of stuff that happened. I don't know what you're up to but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Adam Bishop 20:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

John Wycliffe

What languages did Wycliffe know?--Doug ^talk 19:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll bite: English? Bielle 00:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wycliffe was an Oxford man, and like all educated people of the day he would have a good knowledge of Latin. All university tuition was in this language. Clio the Muse 00:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is more interesting to ask what languages he didn't know - Greek and Hebrew. Adam Bishop 17:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The article on Wycliffe is said to be too long and maybe confusing or unclear for some readers. So be it. It says he probably translated the four gospels, and maybe all of the New Testament. He surely had the Latin, but the question is, did he have any Greek sources? I would guess so; the fact that the Renaissance didn't reach England until a hundred years after his death is probably irrelevant. I assume some Western monks copied Greek as well as Latin biblical texts and that they would have been available at Oxford. --Halcatalyst 04:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

According to Wyclif's_Bible He (with the possible help of others) translated the Latin Vulgate Bible into Middle English. Greek and Hebrew were not involved. -Czmtzc 15:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Greek was pretty rarely copied in the west...what would be the point? Hardly anyone knew any Greek. I'm sure there were Greek texts at Oxford and elsewhere in England, but, well, they would have been all Greek to Wycliffe. (That sounded so much funnier in my head.) Adam Bishop 17:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the consenses then is that he knew (besides English) Latin - however did not know Greek or Hebrew. Would he have known Italian or French?--Doug ^talk 13:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why he would have known Italian; he wasn't from a noble background so he probably didn't know French either (and even among the aristocracy, English was the everyday language in Wycliffe's time). Adam Bishop 17:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wycliffe Bible dating

In our article on Wyclif's Bible it says that it appeared over a period from approximately 1380 to 1390. In the John Wycliffe article it says the entire Bible (Old Testament + New Testament) was done about 1388. In research that I do on the web, it shows an "early addition" of the Wyclife Bible being done in 1384 and a later addition done in 1395. Some sites even say that Wyclif's Bible of the New Testament came out actually in 1380. When did very first version of the Wycliffe Bible containing the New Testament really come out? Was there first just the New Testament translation into English of a Wycliffe Bible (circa 1380 - 1384), then that was followed later (circa 1388 - 1395) with the complete Bible containing the Old Testament?--Doug ^talk 13:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the NT came first. That was pretty typical with many early Bible translations given the doctrinal primacy of the NT to Christians along with the fact that it was considerably shorter. Donald Hosek 20:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you know exactly (+/- 1 year) when the very first version of the New Testament version of Wyclif's Bible came out: was it 1384 or 1388?--Doug ^talk 21:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Metzger's The Bible in Translation states the "first version" was produced in 1382. Metzger seems to interfer that this was the whole Bible. - Thanks, Hoshie 23:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It's rather hard to get an exact date since the Wyclif Bible originally existed only in surreptitiously hand-copied manuscripts. I think you're seeing ranges of dates largely because more precise dating isn't possible. The NT is largely based on Wyclif's sermons from which, it is claimed, a complete English translation could be derived. But both it and the OT are largely the work of Wyclif's followers in the end. Donald Hosek 03:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Bible question

Hi Doug. This diff ([1]) makes me look a bit of a berk, answering a question specifically about the NT with an answer about the OT. Would you consider reverting yourself? My answer was posted to a question about "the Bible", not the NT. --Dweller 15:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate that. --Dweller 15:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Question

Hi Doug. It might be my lack of intellectual rigour(!) but it seems you've posted quite a few times in recent days on the ref desks, with comments that are essentially asking the same question restated in different ways. What are you trying to get at? Is it that people aren't answering in the manner you'd expect? --Dweller 12:43, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking about what I am looking for. I believe they are giving excellent answers. I also think there is additional information that can be obtained on these subjects from different people when asked in a different way? Different people see these ideas from a different viewpoint so perhaps would jump in with an answer, where otherwise they wouldn't. Also it confirms that these are of the same "concepts". Ultimately I am going to write up a new article based on these "concepts", so am looking for all the information I can get for the new article. I should have it ready in a couple of weeks and would be glad to notify you when I put it up. It will combine all this information on these concepts of Ideas, Common Sense, Practical Knowledge, Hunches, and other similar "concepts". Do you have an Idea for a title on my new subject of these?--Doug ^talk 13:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, but I'd be wary of putting it up in Wikipedia, because it'll attacked for being OR. --Dweller 13:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

To avoid being deleted, an article must be written from reliable sources satisfying WP:A. Sometimes answers on the reference desk provide such, but often they are just opinions or describe the personal knowledge and experiences of the responders, and so would not go very far as the basis for an article. Edison 14:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree with you. I'll make sure I get adequate references. Using the Reference Desk only as a springboard for ideas. --Doug ^talk 14:23, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI: recently made a major overhaul to the article good sense, which is basically a new article using the above terms of "common sense" and "practical knowledge". Also did another such major overhaul to nous for these same terms (it being essentially a new article) as it relates to Ancient Greece and their famous philosophers. --Doug ^talk 21:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox

I rather absentmindedly reverted a deletion of a category tag from one of your sandboxes. [2] I have since been informed that if the categories stay in your sandbox article they also appear in the lists of categories on the relevant page, e.g. Category:Sculpture gardens, trails and parks. I have therefore "nowikied" those categories. Hope that that's okay and all the best.Mmoneypenny 21:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem, sounds like a good idea. That's a new "term" for me I can use now. --Doug ^talk 21:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I "love" using "new" terms and even do that annoying gesture with my fingers when saying them. LOL. Mmoneypenny 21:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going through my sandboxes and using this new term. That way I won't get any complaints.--Doug ^talk 22:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Paying for Church

You seem to have closed the discussion on the RD, so I'll answer here. I'm not aware of any church which charges anything for services, though the New Testament says all believers attending church should give what they can. Churches cost more than what you think to run: I won't ID myself, but my church runs basically along the following costs: pastoral pay: $120,000 (2 priests), total budget, ~$300,000, members: 80. I think churches do cost a lot more than what it seems. Though: no visitor to a church should feel pressured to give when the "moneybags", for want of a better word, pass round.91.84.78.101 21:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks for comment. --Doug ^talk 21:49, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sandboxes

Doug, many active editors use subpages to pull together work for articles. However, having over 100 user sub-pages seems like a bit of overkill. Many of these I know are being used to pull together material for articles, a perfectly acceptable use of sub-pages. Some seem to be for articles that have already been moved to the mainspace, and could be deleted. Others seem to be compiling research that you are working on -- and original research should not be in your subpages anymore than in the main space. As wikipedia is not a free webhost, may I suggest deleting some of these sub-pages -- perhaps moving them to your home computer, or some free webhost. You can place {{db-userreq}} on pages that can be deleted, and an admin will speedy delete them. Thanks for your consideration. -- Pastordavid 17:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC) Sure, no problem. --Doug ^talk 18:14, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much. -- Pastor David ^† _(Review) 18:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Nous

Dear Doug, your claim at the deletion discussion that I have enlisted anyone to delete Nous is confused. It is appropriate for there to be an article on nous, and my notice of your changes to the article was an (unsuccessful) attempt to get knowledgeable editors to improve the article. See further my comment on the article talk page. Sincerely, Wareh 18:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I've started cleaning up Nous. If you are going to add a footnote, please give a page number. Otherwise, the reference is useless: footnotes exist for the sole purpose of enabling your reader to go to the sources you're using. In many cases it was obvious that what you were citing had nothing to do with the sentence where you added a footnote (for example, citing Dufour's bibliography after simply saying "Plotinus deserves mention," or claiming that von Fritz's article was a source for Stoic logos). So I'm left wondering if the remaining footnotes are relevant to the sentences where you've placed them, and what if any part of those sources you've used in the article. Wareh 00:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Idea

Doug, your recent edit to Idea [3] is highly problematic. You restructured the article so that there was no lead section and you introduced a lot of speculative, incorrect, or irrelevant information. One small example is "The words idea , weid, eidos, and nous come from the Indo-European languages. The name Iesous (pronounced "ee-yay-soos" or "e-ay-sous") is from Greek." with the following table of words. What relevance does this have to idea? Why is that bit about Jesus in there?

I'm going to revert your changes. In the future, please discuss your edits on the talk page, and make sure the content conforms to all of Wikipedia's policies--espeically those on original research and verifiability. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Aemilia Tertia

Please see my comments regarding the categories listed for this article. A summary here: I have a query about some of the categories used for "Aemilia Tertia", the article. While I recognize her importance, I am not sure the categories used for her husband Scipio Africanus e.g Second Punic War should also be used here.

wikibiohistory 05:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed the suggested categories you thought should be removed. Made some additional improvements too boot.--Doug ^talk 11:58, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Francesco Dionigi proposed for deletion

I have proposed that Francesco Dionigi be deleted, because the subject doesn't seem to be notable outside of his mention in a single letter of Petrarch. If the material in the article should be in Wikipedia, it would be better covered in Petrarch or in Mount Ventoux. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on WP:ANI

I have initiated a discussion about your recent editing at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Doug_Coldwell.C2.A0.28talk.C2.A0.C2.B7_contribs.29.3B_original_research.2C_content_forking.2C_and_material_in_userspace. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism on Genealogia deorum gentilium

Doug, I'm informing you of some plagiarism that you committed on Genealogia deorum gentilium. In the original version of the article [4], you wrote "Boccaccio's on the genealogy of the gods of the gentiles is a scholarly interpretive compendium of classical myth... It was the first ever in a very long line of Renaissance mythographies." This wording is nearly identical to that of the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Humanism ([5]): "His De genealogia deorum gentilium (“On the Genealogy of the Gods of the Gentiles”), a scholarly interpretive compendium of classical myth, was the first in a long line of Renaissance mythographies;..." Copying direct quotes into Wikipedia articles, without giving attribution to the original source, is plagiarism and a violation of the original source's copyright. Please do not copy text from other sources without giving attribution; it is a violation of Wikipedia policies, and if it is found that you habitually do this, you could be blocked from editing. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it was unintentional. I often work from the 1911 Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, which text I understand is public domain. If you found certain text from Encyclopedia Britannica that you think is copyright, could you please remove it as perhaps I placed it there by mistake thinking it was public domain text -or- make the correct reference to what it should be. Normally if I know some text is copyright I make the appropriate reference and give credit where it should be. Example on the article Street Light Interference I quote Hilary Evans on page 16 as to What seems most likely to be happening in this phenomenon and placed it in quoteblocks - which to the other editors I am working with on this article seem to think is the correct procedure. So if you find where I accidently placed some text that is copyright someplace, please make the correct references or let me know so I can correct.--Doug ^talk 19:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving a page

Hi Doug, if you want to move a page, please follow the instructions at WP:MOVE. What you did with Birth of alpinism is called a cut and paste move, and such a move causes the page history to be lost. I've therefore deleted Birth of alpinism, and restored the older version of Birthday of alpinisim. If you want to move the page, please start a discussion at Talk:Birthday of alpinism about the new title. The discussion at the AfD had no consensus about a new title, and I disagree with the title Birth of alpinism, so you will need to gain consensus for a title change, perhaps by listing the article at WP:RM. However, I would hold off on the name change if I were you, because I am thinking of listing the article at WP:DRV. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Birthday of Alpinism etc

Thanks for your message. I'm sorry that I seem to have stirred up a hornet's nest for you. I have left a message on the talk page of the admin who closed the AfD debate on Birthday of Alpinism VS, so he should be aware at least of that, maybe you should drop him a line too. Best wishes, DuncanHill 12:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to issues surrounding Birthday of alpinism

Firstly my apologies for not responding earlier - delayed because of current commitments in real life. (Copies of this message are posted on the pages of the relevant editors mentioned immediately above the original post on my talk page.) I have read all of the above and have looked at the history of changes at this page. I intend not to reply specifically to a couple of the editor versus editor comments - other than to note that, with respect, I agree with the comment made by Doug that all editors should cool down a little bit. In relation to the redirect to Mont Ventoux - in a nutshell I disagree for the simple reason that a redirect is not a merge. More specifically - the AfD resulted in a keep. I appreciate that some people did not like or agree with that decision but the deletion policy does not allow (nor should it) for administrators to act without a solid consensus to delete and such a consensus was not provided in the extremely long and straying comments provided in that AfD.
In further discussion with two editors I suggested that concerns might be addressed by merging, that is taking some or all of the content in this article, and placing it into Petrarch. I used Petrarch as my point of reference because it was that article that was strongly mentioned in the AfD. Whilst editors may have considered that suggestion and adjusted their thought process to redirection, I am a little perplexed at how any editor or group of editors could display a level of fairness to their wiki colleagues without first mentioning the idea of a redirect on the talk page for a few days before it is undertaken. Clearly that has not happened and now you are found again at loggerheads.
To my mind basic wiki guidelines and policy should immediately come into play. Firstly any editor can remove the content of any article that is not verified. From that perspective any such content on Birthday of alpinism should be and can be removed. Secondly, content that is verified within the article can be duplicated in another article where editors feel that it is better placed at that other article. To my mind civility of process should dictate some discussion on the talk page of Birthday of alpinism on these parts. Thirdly, if that process moves relevant content to other articles so that the article is no longer required it could be redirected (for the purpose of meeting search terms), or alternatively it could be deleted through a second AfD process.
Whilst I sincerely hope that you are all able to reach an amicable solution, it would be remiss of me not to note that if the process is unable to be completed in this way because someone or many take an ownership over the article that breaches WP:OWN and especially if WP:3RR is breached, please let me know directly and I will block editors or protect the article as necessary until the normal process of mature editing is completed.--VS ^talk 22:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

,jlkjl

Hello! Sorry for the several months delay... About the images in Cornelia Africana, they were added after I wrote the article. They are indeed nice, but I wouldnt now were to get them. Cheers, muriel@pt 12:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment would be appreciated

At Ownership forking revision proposal. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations

Doug, I appreciate that you're finding higher quality sources for the articles you're writing. It would be very helpful for other editors if you would adopt a more standard citation format; Wikipedia doesn't mandate a particular style, but some guidance can be found at WP:CITE. The University of Chicago Manual of Style is also a good place to look; libraries will have lots of style manuals that will help as well. If it's easier to figure out what sources are being used, it's easier to edit cooperatively. Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism on Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro

Doug, it seems that you have perhaps unintentionally copied a substantial amount of text from a copyrighted source in your contributions to Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro; please see Talk:Dionigi_di_Borgo_San_Sepolcro#Plagiarism.3F. You've been cautioned about plagiarism before ([6]). In addition, there appears to be substantial plagiarism at Liber sine nomine; I don't have time right now, but will post on the talk page there later. This is a serious issue. Please take steps to understand what plagiarism is and to avoid it in the future. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism on Genealogia deorum gentilium

Doug, other instances of plagiarism have been documented at Talk:Genealogia deorum gentilium. User:Johnbod has rewritten the article to fix the problems, but I must repeat that this is a serious issue, and I once again ask you to take steps to understand what plagiarism is, and to avoid it in the future. Some helpful references can be found at [7] and [8]. Thanks. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism on Liber sine nomine

I have reduced Liber sine nomine to a stub because most of the text was plagiarized; please see Talk:Liber sine nomine for details. --Akhilleus (talk) 06:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Doug_Coldwell/Sandboxes/Sandbox_31

Doug, please request the speedy deletion of this sandbox. It contains copyrighted material, as documented at Talk:Liber sine nomine, and should not be in your user space (see WP:USER). --Akhilleus (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Sure, no problem if you feel it has copyright material.--Doug ^talk 16:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do the same with User:Doug Coldwell/Sandboxes/Sandbox 15 and User:Doug Coldwell/Sandboxes/Sandbox 29; same problem. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do it straight away - I'm not working on those anyway. Looks like Genealogia deorum gentilium has developed into a nice article as has Ascent of Mont Ventoux. I believe Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro will also ultimately become a very nice article as well. Looks like we have many editors involved now.--Doug ^talk 17:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Doug, the reason "we have many editors involved now" is because your editing has been very problematic. Plagiarism and deceptive citation are serious ethical problems, and copyright violation places the encyclopedia in potential legal jeopardy. It would be helpful if you would acknowledge these problems, and pledge to eliminate them in the future. As it is, I feel that I have no choice but to monitor all your edits for potential violations, because I don't think you're taking these problems seriously. If I find further instances of plagiarism or copyright violation, I will have to take more serious action, including asking to have you blocked from editing the encyclopedia. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In addition, there is infringing material in User:Doug Coldwell/Sandboxes/Archive 3, so I'd like to ask that you request its deletion as well; or edit it to remove the old copies of Birthday of alpinism. But there's no need to keep a copy of the AfD discussion in your user space; it will always be available at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birthday of alpinism. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

July 13th, 2007 DYK

On 13 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dionigi di Borgo San Sepolcro, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Andrew c ^[talk] 00:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Your 2007-06-11T21:53:28 edit to Ice cream

Just giving you a heads up that I removed these paragraphs. They appear to be a copyright violation, and as such, had to be removed immediately (see WP:COPYVIO). The much of the same text can be found both here and here. --健次(derumi)^talk 16:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Blanking of talk page

Hi Doug, I just wanted to let you know that when you blank your talk page without archiving, especially if the page contains warnings (such as this one), your action will often be interpreted as if you're trying to hide something. You may want to create an archive of your user talk page: instructions for doing so can be found here: Help:Archiving a talk page. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see you archived your talk page into User:Doug Coldwell/Sandboxes/Archive 3. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bowling Alley

Hey Doug,

Love the 2 pictures of the automatic scoring machines. Was wondering if you could tell me where that bowling alley was located and if it still exists as it does in the pictures. I would love to know. Thanks!

Jeff (user name: gaffbag)

Creating Wiki pages from same book

Hi Doug,

I don't have access to "Famous Women", but a couple thoughts? If there's only one source for the articles you're adding, and the events are long in the past, aren't these Wiki articles in some sense a paraphrase? If so, adding another layer of distance from the historical facts might contribute to diluting them. As a historian, I'm really more interested (now that you've reminded me) in finding the original. Would creating a copy for Project Gutenberg achieve something constructive?

Regards

24.6.67.7 22:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Book Without A Name.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Book Without A Name.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 23:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Mistake - really meant to upload as a newer version of image at Wikimedia Commons. --Doug ^talk 12:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding regarding the function of references -- edits like this

Edits like this are completely inappropriate. For facts or lore that go back to ancient authors, and for which Boccaccio is not an important authority whatsoever, references should not be added when they basically just mean, "Oh, and Boccaccio mentioned this well-known bit of mythology once!" Please help revert these inappropriate edits and stop making them. Wareh 01:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism, again

Doug, during the summer I warned you several times that your contributions included plagiarized material. Your latest edits at Liber sine nomine have reintroduced plagiarized material. For instance, after your latest edits, the description of Letter 4 reads: "This letter, written around October or November of 1352, is to the Roman people in an attempt to persuade them to demand that Cola di Rienzo be returned to Rome to stand trial there." At [9], we find "Letter 4 is to the Roman people in an attempt to persuade them to demand that Cola di Rienzo be returned to Rome to stand trial."

Letter 5 reads: "One of Petrarch’s favorite rhetorical devices was the metonymy and here he uses a synecdoche, a type of metonymy, when he describes his frustration with Biblical words and phrases." At [10], we find: "One of Petrarch’s favorite rhetorical devices is the metonymy. In Letter 5 he uses a synecdoche, a type of metonymy."

Copying text from other sources verbatim, unless you indicate that you are quoting directly, is both plagiarism and copyright violation, and is not acceptable upon Wikipedia, or indeed in any medium. You never responded directly to my warnings about plagiarism, and from your recent edits, I suspect that you may not understand that your edits are problematic. Please address this issue; if you do not respond, and you continue to introduce plagiarized text into Wikipedia, you may be blocked from further editing. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right about the fact I should have put quotes around those words and given the correct person that credit. In this case I am not sure who is to get the credit, unless I should have said the website www.loselle.com. Would have been more correct then to have credited it this way:

As from the website www.loselle.com it says of Letter 4

"This letter, written around October or November of 1352, is to the Roman people in an attempt to persuade them to demand that Cola di Rienzo be returned to Rome to stand trial there."

In Letter 5 perhaps better wording would have been "synecdoche, a figure of speech in which a part is ued as a whole or a whole for a part" or perhaps "synecdoche, a figure of speech in which is made the use of an object for that of another." Would that have been more correct? --Doug ^talk 09:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Niobe

In your edit to Niobe you undid my earlier edit, which applied some desirable corrections. I assume that this was accidental, and I would appreciate it if you could restore (re-apply) my edit. --Lambiam 02:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Yes, it was unintentional - they have been restored. Sorry! --Doug ^talk 10:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem. --Lambiam 11:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Douglas MacArthur

~~How popular was it to name a child after Douglas MacArthur during World War II? What references show this~~?--Doug ^talk 13:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I doubt many people changed their child’s last name, so probably not that popular. --S.dedalus (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Good point! I will reword the question: Were there an unusual number of new born sons named Douglas during the time of WWII because of the popularity of Douglas MacArthur? Sources that say this?--Doug ^talk 21:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I went here and calculated the numbers of Douglases per decade as a crudely rounded percentage of the total through the twentieth century. I'm not going to even try to cobble together an ASCII graph of the results, but here they are in tabular form:

1900–09—.06

1910–19—.09

1920–29—.1

1930–39—.2

1940–49—.5

1950–59—.7

1960–69—.7

1970–79—.4

1980–89—.2

1990–99—.1

As crude as they might be, these numbers show a marked spike, more in the post–WWII years. Remember that his fame extended into the fifties with the Korean War. --Milkbreath (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. These suggest, but of course do not prove, that it had something to do with MacArthur. Some of the Douglases may have been so named purely because it had become a popular name for baby boys (which in turn may have been because of MacArthur's prominence). The popularity of individual names rises and falls for all sorts of complex reasons, and maybe it would have happened anyway. Then again, maybe MacArthur wasn't kidding when he said "I will return" (he never specified in which form he'd return). :) -- JackofOz (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not that this will prove the matter, either, I went back and did "Dwight", a rarer name (This is all US data, by the way.):

1900–09—.04

1910–19—.04

1920–29—.04

1930–39—.04

1940–49—.07

1950–59—.1

1960–69—.07

1970–79—.04

1980–89—.02

1990–99—.02

The frequency of the most popular name (Robert, Michael, etc.) stayed in the range 3 to 8 percent throughout. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well thanks for the statistical information on Douglas. I was born in 1945 and nowhere in my family history is the name "Douglas", so wondered how I came of this name. I do believe you have confirmed my suspicion.--Doug ^talk 16:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are some interesting calculations. By the way, it was once not uncommon in the US to use the first and last name of a famous person when naming a child, so if MacArthur lived a century earlier, I'd expect there'd be plenty of guys named Douglas MacArthur Smith and Douglas MacArthur Jones, etc., but I don't know if this first & middle naming practice was common in the 20th century. The most obvious examples of this are all the people named George Washington something. In my own family tree there is an Andrew Jackson Myers and a Ulysses Grant Myers; there were probably hundreds of boys similarly named. Even someone not well-known today, like Bishop William McKendree, had notable people named after him: William McKendree Springer, William McKendree Robbins, and William McKendree Gwin. There are doubtless many such examples, though I would expect presidents and generals to top the list. I wonder if there was a corresponding naming practice for girls? —Kevin Myers 00:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Florence was not a common name for girls before Florence Nightingale. Edison (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Martin Luther King, Jr. is a relatively recent example of the given names being the given name + surname of an honoured person. Although MLK was born in 1929, this name was adopted in 1935. One example does not establish that it was common, of course. --Lambiam 11:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)