User:Geogre/Talk archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

October 10 - November 9, 2004

Corrections to Opposition to Castro[edit]

Hi there I have made changes to the Opposition to Castro will you reconsider your vote. If you do not think that satisfy the NPOV policy please help me do so. It is hard for me to not have a POV on the matter. I love democracy and the Internet and this great country we live in. Thanks and regards! SilentVoice 22:05, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Ah. I missed your message, because it was at the top instead of bottom of my page. Anyway, it is much better now. I don't think it's good enough to be final, but it's certainly good enough to stay and attract other editors now. I'll adjust my vote on VfD accordingly. Geogre 22:08, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

John Vanbrugh[edit]

You know, Geogre, John Vanbrugh is a complete Frankenstein's monster at the moment, hardly worth spending your valuable time on, as I saw you did. See, while I've rewritten the drama part, the architecture part is still completely 1911 EB. It's just a horrible mix, and it's not supposed to stay like that for very long; User:Wetman has undertaken to rewrite it, which I think is great. I think I'll put something about the current monstrousness on my userpage boastlist. Right now.--Bishonen 22:39, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I only thought that Palladianism, as one of the biggest movements in architecture of the 17th century, ought to have an article. I read that one after I read The Country Wife. I've always liked that play, and I almost inserted a thing about "Horner" being "the man who hangs horns on husbands," but I didn't see a natural spot for it. On the She-tragedy I had a question about The Spectator having a female audience. It did, of course, but I always read it as a man talking to men. It became a universal readership, though. Those sentences of Addison's are gorgeous (and a feminist literary theorist could say that Addison has feminine writing, and I'd agree). Anyway, when I read Country Wife back in my freshman year (and then again another couple of times since), I always wondered why it was even named after Marjorie, because the main business of the play is Horner settling down to a single woman. I think you kind of didn't include that, if I'm right that it is the point and I'm not thinking of Way of the World. I thought Horner got reformed, got a single, worthy, wit woman, and hung up the spurs. Good job on that play. You might put in a "Themes" section, if you're up for it. Geogre 01:04, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Mhm. Well, I've written to you twice on the She-tragedy talk page since you asked about The Spectator.
You're probably thinking of The Man of Mode, with the rake settling down with one witty woman. (There isn't really a rake-hero in The Way of the World, in fact it's not much of a Restoration comedy at all, but it's a very cool play.) Horner just steams right on, that's kind of the point of him. There is just no uplift in The Country Wife. I like your addition a lot, it's excellent. Did you see my comment on the article talk page and attempted rewrite of the last section, merging my graph and yours and adding a little more?
Maybe article talk pages aren't ideal for saying stuff to you?
No, there's no good spot for the Horner/horns thing. (I don't see it as _that_ interesting, frankly.) There is a reason the play's named The Country Wife. Very regrettable reason, and not to do with Margery as a character. It's more, uh, well, it's a phonetic pun. (Stares you in the face once you think of it, doesn't it?) I didn't mention that, either. In fact, if anybody should accuse me of deliberately mentioning bawdy stuff in that article, they'd be completely wrong, I've avoided it as much as possible. (The china scene has some much more graphic passages than the one I quoted.)--Bishonen 21:44, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, Talk pages aren't as good as e-mail. I don't have my settings watchlist all new pages. If I did, I'd have known that you'd responded. I have been looking back at The Country Wife, because I did such an edit there, but not really at She-tragedy again. I've added and repaired at the former for my mistake. Dadgummed Harold Weber. Ok, in Country Wife there is a bit of a former mistress and a disillusioned rake who settle down together. Doralinda? Anyway, the point is that the play kind of shows you the three stages of the rake and asks what happens when you get too old for the game. You can either do what Pinchwife does and go grab a silly girl, or you can do dude... and get a rake lady, or you can keep going, like Horner. Horner is the young stage, that dude is the middle stage, and Pinchwife is the old stage, and each man goes from challenger/thief to mate to defanged/impotent victim. You really think the pun? Hmm. I wonder if there were similar for "City." (SOW, there is a quick shift in "city" in that decade that would be interesting to document. You go from the City wits of Wycherly to the City Heiress overnight, where the city is the court, one place, and a place of ignorant wealth, another.) Geogre 22:11, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Oh, not the protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism? It did sound a stretch for Max, now you mention it, but I just didn't think. Harold Weber, of course, The Restoration Rake-Hero. Sure, very good book. Sounds like you remember what's in it better than I do, but I set it for the grads to read once. I should have gotten it out of KB, as long as I anyway fetched a lorry-load last week, it's not even a fat book. I was more thinking in terms of getting hold of straight info than ideological analysis at that point, though.
Honestly, there's no reformed rake and rake-lady in the CW, I do think that's Etherege's Man of Mode you've got there. The two plays are real contemporary, same season even. Unless you're thinking of Harcourt and Alithea in the CW, that I mention at the beginning of the article. They settle down, but they're admirable and kind of settled right from the start. Harcourt never plays the game.
Wycherley borrows from Molière's School for Wives, indeed, and then next year in The Plain Dealer he borrows from Molière again, Le Misanthrope. Have you read The Plain Dealer? I'm thinking it might be just the kind of thing you'd like. Classic satire. Jonsonian. Oh, and it's got a hilarious discussion of the CW right in the dialogue, that's just the kind of thing I like. :-) I bet that brought the house down. Well, what did you think of my merged Social Context section? I was hoping you'd tweak it. And it's time to rename it, I guess.--Bishonen 23:29, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, of course I've read "The Plain Dealer." You know what, though? It never appealed to me. I can't explain that, but it never did. I felt like the satire was stuff that I'd thought of too long before, where the satires by Swift and Pope were things I'd never thought of, so the delight of discovery wasn't there for me. I know that Man of Mode has the retired rake as its main plot, especially with the great wit battle between husband and wife. (Way of the World not a Restoration Comedy? Really? Is that because of timing? It seemed to me to be the epitome.) Anyway, I think it's Harcourt and Alithea that I was thinking of. Also, though, one of the big problems for us learning these plays is learning them all together. Both times I took a class in Restoration, we read five comedies in a row, and they all ran together. A better teaching model would be to have a Dryden to Pope class where you read one comedy, then some Dryden, quiz the class; a different comedy and the second half of your Dryden, quiz the class; a third comedy, the early Pope stuff, quiz, etc. The characters run together because the characters are adapted from other comedies. It was on purpose that these rakes and heroines were so alike. I liked the merged Social Context, although it's now kind of a Themes section, and I didn't have much to add, really. I mean, there is a ton one could add -- you know me. Once my critical engine gets turned over, I can go miles on anything 18th c. However, I think it's at a good spot for a Wikipedia article. Geogre 14:17, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC) Umm, why did you cut Harold out of it? Geogre 17:34, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wit battle between husband and wife in The Man of Mode... ? Sorry to keep saying you've got the plays transposed, but you're probably thinking of The Way of the World there. ;-) I know they plays all run together,, of course they do. On top of always being studied in a single lump, they're each of them also about 300% more complicated plotwise than a Molière play, with great bonanzas of subplots and events and twists and turns, which doesn't help at all in separating what happens in which. The Way of the World is very historically interesting. What I meant with "not really a Rest comedy" is that it's a hard comedy just in the process of melting into softness.
Hey, I'd already changed the name of the final section to "Context and theme" when you wrote that. :-) Yeah, I think it's a pretty proportionate article now. (It's about the same length as Hamlet, and rather better, IMHO. :-D )--Bishonen 17:43, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I still don't know why you went and killed Harold. You know how I am about Doug, though. Anyway, I'm sure I do have them mixed. It's not like it would be any suffering for me to reread these. My huge Nettleton Case & Stone Rest. anthology is one of those missing books of mine. I have Country Wife in a Regents edition, so that's no biggy. I could reread that to emphasize the 3 ages of Rakes thing, if I wanted to. Anyhow, I've always seen Man of Mode as the distillation and perfection of the Restoration Comedy. We've talked about this before, though: it was the last great Rest. Comedy because it was written too late.

Or, well, it may have been *written* at the proper time, but he wouldn't finish it until it was too late, and by then the tastes had changed. It's not quite as bad, but sort of how Walter Scott writes the perfect 18th century novels by virtue of being a 19th century author. By then, a clever person could see what was going on, and Congreve was extremely clever. Anyway, I keep threatening to reread things, but I haven't done any of them yet. I definitely mean to reread Annus Mirabilis, and it shouldn't take long. Dryden's easy reading.

I was thinking of ordering books online today, and I thought about looking for that Trivia edition with other Gay poems, and maybe I'll try to find an ed. of Hudibras, as there's still no article on that. Then again, I probably won't, and they're probably pricey books.

If I do reread CW, you'll know about it, because I won't be able to shut up. (Hamlet is disgracefully short? That's appalling.) Geogre 17:52, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

(Still?) I? Went? And? Killed? Harold? Please let me know what you're talking about.
It's not so much that Hamlet is short. It has no critical perspective, no sources, no references, and no verb in the first sentence.--Bishonen 18:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Anyway, I hate to say this, but The Way of the World (1700), not The Man of Mode (1676), is the play that's distilled and perfect and late and by Congreve. Never mind, let's forget these confusing plays. I just thought of yet another way the playwrights seem to deliberately try to keep people from remembering (besides the ways I described in my e-mail): they have those nothing-meaning titles. --Bishonen 18:29, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry: pure slander on my part. You didn't harm Harold. I thought he had been excised, but I see him there now. This morning's edits by me were not good. I just had to fix one of my fixes. (Good thing I'm not inclined toward Shakespare. Wonder when User:Singing Badger will find the article. He's a Ren. person.) Geogre 18:21, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, you've got me all wrong if you think I would excise Harold, especially after you put him in. As for Hamlet, if you wonder that, check out the History. Not that I would ever blame anybody for not fixing stuff. Absolutely not. We're all volunteers here, and for myself I don't acknowledge any duty to fix anything whatever on the site. --Bishonen 18:45, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Deletion policy[edit]

I was wondering (particularly after reading your comments about "Friends" episodes above) if you'd want to get involved in the discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy#Policy proposal concerning episode guides and episode lists. I think the discussion could use some more quality debate. I'm not asking you to endorse my position by any means (not that I have a totally firm position), but as an intelligent person whose opinion I respect I think you could add something. Of course, if you're fed up with discussing deletion policy I completely understand. -R. fiend 21:09, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I have been doing a great deal of thinking about VfD recently, especially on the issue of notability. I know you have also put much thought into deletion issues. On your user page you have an excellent essay on why poor quality articles should be deleted. You also list firm guidelines for determining what is not notable. What I am wondering, however, is what theory underlies why articles that are of decent quality, but of low notability, such as Sarah Marple-Cantrell, Green Hill Zone, or Dinner At Eight should be removed. - SimonP 05:54, Oct 14, 2004 (UTC)

Those are much harder, of course. I'd distinguish Dinner At Eight from Sarah Marple-Cantrell, though. The problem with "Dinner at Eight" is that it is a single episode, and, I believe, unless we have a subpage system, having a break out of a single episode of anything actually harms the information flow by separating the full information from the topic by which it will be sought ("Frasier"). Additionally, there is a kind of logic violation in having things that people will not seek out there. Frankly, you have to already know the name of the episode and something of what happened in it to search for it by episode name. The way it would be of use would be if there were a big List of Frasier episodes that had every episode linked. That's a backdoor method of setting up subpages that, I think, doesn't work. The same thing applies, generally, to Green Hill Zone, where what we're looking at is a minor aspect of a larger topic. By breaking it free into a separate article, we're proliferating without cause. This is just Occam's razor of articles: articles should not be multiplied without cause. What is the need for a separate article? If there is a need (it will be sought? it cannot be contained?), I support it.
For well-written articles on non-notable people, we're in a different situation. The big reason is simply one of encyclopedia concerns. Encyclopedias organize information not merely because they're paper, and they select not merely because they're paper. We cannot in good faith say "no vanity articles" and then say, "Unless they're really well written." Similarly, we can't say, "Wikipedia is not a memorial site" and then say, "Unless you do a very good job."
Anyway, to me, the problem is that we have set forth standards, and we have to keep to them. There are very good reasons for the standards, but a debate on those shouldn't be cloaked.
In the case of excessive granularity, I think we lose information and pollute the pool by grabbing up names. In the case of unknown folks, we grab names, but we also simply divert our project to the service of a very small minority of our contributors and virtually none of our users. Geogre 14:15, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I agree strongly with your point that we should not discriminate between vanity articles based on their quality. However, your first argument seems to be more for a reorganization of information rather than its outright deletion.
The view I have developed is that articles should be deleted less because they are not well known, and more because at a certain level of unimportance it becomes impossible to have good articles. Wikipedia does have the goal of gathering all encyclopedic knowledge, however that aim is trumped by the requirement for articles to be neutral and accurate.
It is almost impossible for an article on a local band to be fact checked. Since the only people that have heard of such a band are its members, their family, and close friends it is also unlikely the article is neutral. Similar logic applies to minor websites, conlangs, micronations, neologisms, and most of the vast majority of the world's population.
By contrast the plot of an episode of Frasier, the history of a high school, or a Pokemon's statistics are all verifiable with a little research. The Wikipedians who write on these subjects are not directly linked to them and thus, in theory, can write about them in an NPOV fashion. - SimonP 02:57, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
My first argument is for reorganization, or rather not breaking organization. There are consequences, however, that have to be dealt with by deletion. When we break out every piece of equipment or furniture or character or joke from a thing, the information is useless, and we may well have to delete the article, if it is non-contributory. At the least, we have to put it back where it belongs, and that means merger, but also deletion (even if it's a redirect).
Your emphasis on verfication is one way out, but I also definitely think that getting "all knowledge" is not a worthy aim. All "encyclopedic knowledge" implies within it a selection criterion that is a set of criteria. Fads, intimate rules of games, game players, etc. from 15 years ago would be hated by contemporary authors, and yet current gamer clans, game details, etc. seem to be a point of passionate pride. My view is that we give pop culture a few years to settle down so that we can find out which things are the Pogs and which are the Trivial Pursuit of their age.
Verifiability is a good cut line, and it has to be involved. Lists of things like "people killed in Boznia" can't be verified. The same for, as you point out, band vanity. I'd see all conlangs go, but I can't win. The same is true of micronations. Once something becomes a trend, it's no longer a local political protest (Conch Republic) and, instead, a fad.
Anyhow, I think we have to, by all means, choose the things that are going to reward our readers, and that also means not duplicating what other sites do so well and chasing the horizon. I think the fan sites do what they do, and if we attempt to duplicate them, we're not helping. A general article on a fiction is all we generally need, unless it's a fiction that's overwhelmingly important. Think of Pokemon not as a cartoon and game, but as a book. Now, how many articles would Moby Dick get? Each character? Now, let's take it down a notch. Uncle Tom's Cabin had an enormous effect on history, was read by a huge percentage of the population. How many articles would that generate? You see where I'm going with this. Breaking free every character from Uncle Tom's Cabin, and then every article of clothing worn in a particular scene, and then big conflicts in it, etc., is just plain not needed and not informative. Anyway, that's how I feel about the pop-fictions. Geogre 13:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tale of a Tub[edit]

Sadly, I did catch the spelling of privilege by reading the article. I imported the latest version of the Wikipedia database into mysql this afternoon and did a quick query for one of my favorite misspellings. ElBenevolente 23:54, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Copying this, which I also left on the article talk page: 'Hi. Could you add references to this article? I'd very much like to nominate it on WP:FAC.' Filiocht 15:16, Oct 18, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for the nomination, Filiocht. I've now added a bunch of references, although nowhere near the best ones (some are the best, but there are plenty more), and an image. I'm contemplating putting in another image or two in the next day. Books like this don't really lend themselves to too many images. I also have a good illustration that I just put up on my Jonathan Wild page (thanks to Bishonen, who helped me greatly with getting the books necessary). Geogre 04:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It seems that User:Jeronimo is being extremely gracious regarding their objection. Looks like this will soon be a featured article, I'm pleased to say. Filiocht 15:04, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Admin nomination[edit]

Thanks for your support on my nomination! I appreciate it :) - Ta bu shi da yu 04:33, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category Drama[edit]

Have you seen the good advice Jerzy's been giving me on my page about cats? I've edified, and have been depopulating Category:Drama like there's no tomorrow. I'm gonna get that sucker into shape. By "shape" I mean, of course, that it needs to contain only articles by you and me. :-) (Right now, I make ours 8 articles out of 20.)--Bishonen 19:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You know, I struggled with the Theobald. I couldn't figure out what to do with an editor of Shakespeare. He's important because he standardized Shakespear, but, well, his plays stank. Anyway, at least there's a Theobald article now. I read the 1911 entry, but there isn't a word from it in my article, so I didn't feel like giving a cite to it. Geogre 20:45, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Good old Tibbald, I think you did just fine with him. Guess what? Ha. Ho. I just created and populated Category:English Restoration plays. He. I've got it now, creating a cat is just like creating any article. Populating it is more effortful, I'll think twice before I do one that'll need lots of articles moving into it. But with that proviso, I am now open for requests. :-) Good night, Geogre. --Bishonen 01:01, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I saw! Cool. I see that many of mine are in there now. I still don't know what to do with Theobald, or, for that matter, someone like John Dennis (who has an article already and whom I know little about, except that that's more than most people). What do we do with people who are important because they set up the rules for drama? I had this idea for a category called [[Category: Dramaturgy]], but I'd have to know how to create a subcategory. Since I haven't figured out how to file something in a subcat, I've no clue about creating them. It's good to know, though, that one just proposes a category that doesn't exist in order to create it. You're going to be the cat master in no time, I can tell. :-) (I'm somewhat pleased with the Theobald article. There is this one sentence in there that's just plain showing off. Rhetorical flourish with a bow taken -- an antithesis that's just gaudy.) I keep thinking that there are hundreds of things that I need to write about, but I can never think of them. I know that The Dunciad needs an article, but I've been edging my way backward to Pope altogether. I read the Maynard Mack biography. Arguably, I know as much about him as anyone who isn't a specific Popian, but Pope's like Shakespeare: the difference between a scholar of- and a student of- is vast. Perhaps I'll set myself the task of rereading the 1728 and 1735 and 1741 Dunciads tomorrow. I know I've referred to it in at least 5 articles. Geogre 01:21, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Tale and cat[edit]

That was so, so restrained of you to not hang and quarter the editor that contributed Swift's "nebulousness of purpose"!!! If you want a Category: Dramaturgy, I'll be glad to create it, but, uh, what parent/s/ and what population did you have in mind? It needs to start with at least one parent, and I think it should have one inhabitant, too. Cats get put up for deletion if they're empty and people don't see the usefulness of them. (File? File?) --Bishonen 00:50, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

File? I don't even know what that means.
 :-) Excellent, excellent, I don't either, we're as one. (Just tried to engage with your "haven't figured out how to file something in a subcat". How to put an article into it? That's by putting cat:X into the article page, like you've frequently done it.)
Anyway, I was thinking of Dramaturgy being the discussion of drama -- theater criticism and theater staging -- so Alan Dessen's famous Stagecraft, were it to have an article (and it shouldn't), would be in it. Essay of Dramatick Poetry would be in it, and so would Unities, since they're both "how to write/stage a play." It would belong to the Drama category, I would think, or to Literature. John Dennis would go in there, too, although he was a critic of anything and everything. Collier's attack would go in there, too.
Where was I just reading about a response to Collier? Damn it. I was just reading Dunciad of 1728, but that can't be it. Oh, right: Dennis wrote a book length reply, and I was reading it here at Wikipedia. :-)
Yeah, I was as nice as I could be to the anon. I don't remember anything about "ears" in the Tale, but it could have slipped my mind. I wanted to try to be charitable and incorporate what he or she was trying to say, even though his or her phrasing was very infelicitous. The fact is, it's the only contribution to the article about a substantive in over a year. This is partly because I didn't leave much room for more to be said, I guess. (To tell the truth, it seemed like the writing of someone who was just encountering the book as an undergraduate. I'm delighted that anyone is still teaching it.) Geogre 02:35, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Mmhmm. You really want a subcat Category:Dramaturgy under Category:Drama, then? Just making sure. Once you create a cat, I think they have to be put up for deletion if you change your mind. (Unless you could just speedy them at request of creator.) And all article moving is by hand one at a time, as per above.
Won't it be a bit synonymous with Category:Drama itself? --Bishonen 12:37, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Forgot John Dennis[edit]

So I'll create Category:People whose sense of their own importance approaches mania for Dennis, shall I? That's got to be the best thing the 1911 EB ever said. :-)--Bishonen 01:12, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, the scholarly wisecrack. Not a lost art, but an unappreciated one these days. (That e-mail from Bo was about as ego corrosive as anything. Breathtaking, really.) Like Theobald and Cibber, Dennis was a lot better than Pope leads us to believe, but, yes, he did have a healthy view of himself. 'They won't stage my play, but by G-d they'll steal my thunder!' SOW, I ran across an ode Pope wrote to a woman who wet herself at a staging of Cato. He talks about how all the good Whig ladies cried at the fate of their Cato, but her eyes remained dry, while she let it flow from a more sincere port. (The man was not a misogynist, I maintain, but he was unacquainted with women at all.) Geogre 02:41, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I'm confused. Here is a link to Encarta's article on Flaconry, which contains a glossary of terms, here is our policy stating that glossaries are ok to include, here is a list of glossaries that we already have. Obviously a glossary is not the same utility as a dictionary. Collections of specialist terms are entirely suitable for Wikipedia. Mark Richards 20:18, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I like your user page--I came via your Tale of a Tub FAC nom and I quite enjoyed the read. Keep up the good work! :) That is all. jengod 02:10, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I was going to add your Venice Preserv'd to Template:Did you know the other day, but I couldn't figure out what the hook should be. :) If you ever write something you think would be a good DYK, please (please!) mention it in the suggestions section of Template_talk:Did you know. Best again, ~j
Wow, thanks jengod! If I were going to try to have a hook for Venice Preserv'd, I guess I'd do something like, "Although it is seldom staged now, Thomas Otway's Venice Preserv'd was considered one of the greatest tragedies in English for well over a hundred years?" Something like that.
I have two "didja know" kinds of things that I've written, I think. One was the Ormulum article, where it might be DYK that the Middle English poem The Ormulum gives an exact pronunciation guide to Middle English and is one of the chief ways we know how the language sounded? The other one was Jack Ketch, where it's kind of obvious. Jack Ketch was a real executioner, and he's now a synonymn for death. I'll drop these tidbits on the DYK Talk page. Oooh! Thought of another one! The Cotton Library is a DYK kind of thing -- it's the single greatest source of Old English literature. Geogre 15:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oh, and about the FAC, I do think that the Tale article is the most comprehensive one I've written, but that's also because I'm an expert on that book. For the article I've written that I think is the best read and better, really, as an FAC, I think my Jonathan Wild is a lot better. I'm going to add more pictures to it, and I suppose some more bibliography (although there isn't a lot out there that's non-fiction and not contemporary with Wild himself). Anyway, that article, I think, is a more concise and entertaining read and probably has more of an appeal to a wide audience. Geogre 15:51, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi Geogre, just to say that your considerable development of guardian angel article is great. You're too modest saying it's 'not yours', all i did was on Sir T.B.but you really pumped it up nicely to v. informative. That's the great thing about the wiki revisiting pages a year later to see them expertly supplemented and edited, thanks again ! Norwikian 11:12, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's extremely generous of you, Norwikian. I appreciate it. When I started researching the topic, I learned a ton. I thought the whole thing was unofficial, and I had no idea that the various Christian churches have guardian angels as a real part of their theology to this day. It was one of the articles where writing it meant learning, too. Thanks for the compliment. Geogre 15:29, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Hey Geogre, could you please bolden the links to the new articles of your DYK proposition? I note that Cotton library was on DYK recently (see the archive)... Lupo 15:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Rats! I didn't know it was already. Wow. I'm glad it was. I'll go back there and bold the links. Thanks. Geogre 18:15, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Doesn't matter anyway. DYK is weird. The articles have to be less than 72 hr old? That seems...iffy. I thought it meant that the nominations couldn't be more than 72 hr old to be left in that spot. Whatever. I now know not to take the DYK stuff very seriously on the main page. Personally, I'd rather see those factoids drawn from articles that have been around long enough not to be put on VfD or massively edited and corrected. Geogre 18:36, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    I think the point of DYK is threefold: firstly, it serves to highlight good new articles, bringing them to the attention of a wider audience, who then can help improve these articles even further. Secondly, it is a kind of advertisement for Wikipedia: "look what great new articles we get!". And thirdly, its a motivator for the authors of these new articles, inspiring them to keep up the good work. But you're certainly right, it shouldn't be taken too seriously. On the other hand, I don't think one should take everything dead seriously on Wikipedia, and so I am quite happy with DYK. I think it is a good idea. (BTW, the old main page had something similar: just a list of new articles, and whenever some admin saw a good new article, he'd remove one of the old ones listed and put the new one there. Worked like the requests on Wikipedia:Recentchanges.) Lupo 19:10, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Well, "New Articles" is different. I don't have any objection to that, but DYK is presented like a new fact for the visitor to Wikipedia. When these things come up from only the ranks of the new articles, we're not sure they are facts, or certainly not that they are felicitously expressed. That's my concern: this is the enticement to visitors to show us that we're a site for learning. If our DYK is "that Vanity Article says that Minor Concern had Minor Event occur," we don't look great. I should think the criterion would be "interesting facts that casual, educated folks should know." Anyway, that's just me. Geogre 21:50, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
    So far, Jengod has done a superb job of selecting only articles that were indeed accurate. I haven't seen a single bogus article or (sub-)stub on DYK yet. And if that should ever happen, it wouldn't stay on DYK for long—this is a Wiki after all, and if something factually incorrect was shown, I'm sure somebody would correct it. Lupo 07:15, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Deletion cases[edit]

I hope you will take this as the friendly 'heads up' that it is intended to be. Given that there are a couple active discussions regarding the CSD definitions, and whether admins are following them exactly[1][2], I would encourage all admins to be particularly conservative with deletions at the moment, especially of high visibility pages such as those currently on VfD. That said, I think that pretty much everything I've seen get speedy deleted, I agree doesn't belong on Wikipedia, so I only find fault with the narrowness of the speedy rules (a concern I know you share), not the actions of any admin. To get an idea of the CSD expansions I would like to see, see User:Niteowlneils/csdornot/ Niteowlneils 20:04, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In a way, I hope for renewed attention on the abuse of speedy. Seriously. Yesterday, one admin boasted of speedy deleting whatever he wanted, and he had hated my Early Deletion proposal because he thought I was trying to force admins to obey rules! If you can believe it, this was in open IRC. I said that I knew I had gone beyond the lines, that I knew that virtually everyone had, that that was a problem, that we need either to change the rules to match the practice or the practice to match the rules. I think all the deletions I have done off of the VfD page were arguable cases. The question is that right now admins are going into great tortures of interpretation to justify what they're doing. I had hoped for a way to get CSD widened, but, and I hope you take this well, I think that your efforts are doomed. As long as the whole community votes, the community will say "I don't think only Sysops should do this! Why don't we get to vote?" Speedy widening will not happen, if it's a matter of open vote, in my opinion, and that's why I had attempted a compromise: a broadening that required consensus. The result was a massacre. If that got killed, I can't see how any other proposal is going to win, and yet even the most dedicated admin can't keep up with the load on VfD now. In a sense, I hope there is a showdown that forces the community to face the truth: VfD is broken, too much is coming in to filter, and Speedy needs widening. Geogre 21:46, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, I was thinking of reintroducing your "early deletion" proposal, but I have yet to find out how to overcome the hurdle of giving only admins the power to vote in early deletion. Now, more than ever, I feel such a proposal is necessary. Just today, several schools were listed on Votes for deletion.
In the meantime, I was thinking of a page where users could list pages that may not be encyclopedic, and need expansion before they're listed on VFD-- almost like cleanup. No discussion will be allowed. After a few days, someone will list uncleaned articles on VFD. Is this idea of interest to you? [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 04:57, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)
You know, there were two reasons for "no" votes. Neither can be addressed, IMO. One was "Admin-only means power grab." Well, there is a way to go around that, but it's a nasty one. That method would be to have another class of user: regular users who self-nominate for the deletion review board. They serve for, oh, 2-3 weeks at a time, approval is assumed unless there is a reason to object (rather than having to have a reason to approve), and then they serve on it, along with the admins, for some time. That's one way. The problem is kind of obvious: big assed administrative beaurocracy. Anyway, the other reason for the "no" votes was that it "adds beaurocracy." Yeah, well, it does. That, I thought, was a contingent that would vote "no" anyway, and it was a small group. What surprised me was how livid the "no" voters got. Honestly, it was such a mild proposal that their fury is just bizarre.
The second idea is good. I'd certainly support it, although I think it's a compromise with the grim reaper. Seems to me there are two serious signs of morbidity in Wikipedia's excretory system (I think of the project like an organism: it must gain food (articles), but it also must reject and filter out poison and empty stuff (delete)). One is that Clean Up is overwhelmed. The other is that VfD is overwhelmed. We can add in the fact that CSD is abused, but I think that's an effect rather than a cause. People have been listing things on VfD because they want the things cleaned. That's a very bad thing. They're doing it less as VfD has fallen all to pieces, but for a year people would list and vote on VfD items on the basis of "this can be a good article," and then someone would desperately bulk it up. Clean Up is dead because of the overwhelming numbers of articles there, and not just because too few editors work there or that they're too timid. They're too timid because the numbers are too high. The numbers are too high because we're getting articles at an incredible rate, and we're getting junk articles at a phenomenal rate. Your proposal is good, but it acknowledges and sort of bargains with this disease process. I agree with it. I just think that we're not really facing up yet, and I'm not sure we can as long as people who never vote on VfD or work on Clean Up vote on these proposals.
Finally, though, there are a number of people who have been toying with a "Version" plan. Angela had a great idea that nothing has been done with. Each article would have a rating. Anyone reading an article has a chance to give it a score, 1-5. Those things that have an average score of 4-5 get put into the sort of Wikipedia 1.0 version. Those things that had an average score of 1-2 might well go to VfD. To me, that's a good idea, with reservations.
Another version of the version idea is that all new pages carry a rating. They carry the rating for some period of time (2 weeks? 2 months?), and anything with an average score of 0-1 would be a speedy, 1-2 would be a VfD, 3-4 would be Featured or Collaboration.
All of these are possible ideas, but the Version systems all require technical folks and major implementation work, and open voting will, I think, doom any attempts at widening speedy or changing VfD in either direction. If you get near making a proposal or would like my collaboration in the drafting of one, simply drop me a note, and I'll be happy to help. Geogre 13:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Just noticed that some people are really putting the {{delete}} tag on articles that are really, really clearly not speedy delete cases. It's almost like someone seeing if admins will do the illegal thing. Sheesh. When I was 17, I knew not to take beer offered by a cop. Geogre 15:20, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Step up, see the big picture[edit]

Geogre, check out the new portrait at John Vanbrugh, wear your sunglasses! Finally I got a chance to actually edit the article for 15 minutes this morning, the server made it impossible all day yesterday. Just off to U here, don't think I'll be home before midnight (accursed semi-social research thing in the evening). In haste,--Bishonen 07:31, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Huge picture, but a very nice reproduction. I can tell you had a nice, big, folio sized print to use. Looks lush. I was surprised/disappointed that Anne Bracegirdle wasn't as much of a hottie as I expected. There is that wretched 18th c. portrait habit to make all women look exactly alike, although it looked from the engraving/painting that she must have been a sandy blonde, in contrast to Barry's black hair. Other than that, she doesn't look particularly pretty (but who does in 18th c. portraiture?). Did you see the gallows ticket in the Jonathan Wild article? That's what I was referring to when I said that it was now profusely illustrated. Geogre 13:21, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Ouch, though, I've been thinking all day that I shouldn't have suggested you go look while the "thumbnail" (I'd hate to see that thumb) was so huge, and that you were probably stuck for hours loading the page by dial-up. I just didn't think about load times (which one should always do). I'd been so frustrated about not being able to upload pictures at all yesterday, getting the old "you have to be logged in to upload" runaround, that when suddenly this morning it went up with no trouble at all, I followed my pent-up urge to see that picture on the page and see it good. Isn't it a great portrait? It's supposed to be one of Kneller's best. My print wasn't that big, half a book page, but high quality on glossy paper, and C did a good job scanning it. (Never do yourself what you can get a nerd to do for you, is my principle.) Yes, indeed, I did see the gallows ticket, how macabre and excellent. :-) Time to start just ignoring those weird objection on the Tale vote, don't you think? See how everybody else loves the article?--Bishonen 15:37, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It was, um, a bit large, yes, and the load was a wee bit long. Still, it's a very good reproduction of a good portrait. It's a more realistic portrait than most you see (see my above complaint about all the women looking the same). I won't say that no one talks about how fashion ruins the portraits, but I think it does. Perhaps the fault is our own historical moment and our not seeing the features that would have been unique at the time. Sort of like being able to hear the vowel differences in another language: your ear is trained to it or not. So it may be that all of these portraits "looked just like them," but we look at different features now.
I thought the gallows ticket was pretty cool in a grisly way. I had not known before that people sold admission to the hangings. I mean, I knew it, sort of, from Tyburn's Fearful Tree, but I had never seen a ticket before. I somehow never thought of them selling tickets the way we sell tickets to a game. I also thought the emblems were interesting. I know that Vin Caretta or someone like Paulson would decode them instantly, but each of those meant something to a contemporary. Obviously the big figures at the bottom are Death and the Grave, but the empty manacles? The coffin at the bottom? The stocks? Interesting. Geogre 16:28, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

mysterious listing for deletion[edit]

hi geogre,

i'm one of the people who wrote the Monochrom page. you listed this page for deletion over 3 weeks ago, but we couldn't find any reason for it on the votes for deletion page. since then, 6 votes for keeping have been written (including mine), but neither has the page been deleted, nor was the list for deletion label removed. I just wanted to ask you about the status of the entry, and, perhaps more important, why you listed it for deletion in the first place? thanks, verres

Interesting. I don't know why it never got listed on the VfD page, where I put it. I suspect that someone (a vandal) made a deletion on the VfD page that removed that listing as well as the one that he or she wished to remove (unless it was one of the people involved in the Monocrhom page who cut it off of VfD). At any rate, the reason for the listing in the first place was that it was a local arts movement, or it seemed that way to me on the date of listing. I.e. it appeared to be a non-notable organization that might do work that its members find interesting but which has not yet achieved a level of general notability sufficient to be in the Wikipedia. That said, the version of the article I saw upon listing was much less developed than the present page. It has since been fleshed out quite a bit. I still have suspicions about notability, but I will yield to the keep votes (hopefully not all were authors). In the fine arts, it is extremely difficult for a general audience to know a Cabaret Voltaire from a Mannheim Art Club, to distinguish the vanity localism from the international movement, the Bauhaus from the Brick House. I will remove the VfD header, but I still feel that the article needs to establish quickly and definitively why this organization is of national or international import and why it is not merely a club. Geogre 01:28, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

your comments are desired[edit]

Please take a look at a discussion on the village pump; an admin has taken it upon himself to challenge clear VfD deletion results through a third channel, other than voting and undeletion requests. Thought you might be interested... Postdlf 01:46, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, there have been rumors about this going for some time now. I really had hoped it wasn't true. I've commented now, for what it's worth. If SimonP is really determined, though, then there isn't much anyone can do that's polite. I welcome a big Notability discussion. I've argued about it several places, and I think I can make a good case for it, but one doesn't have the discussion by just deciding to negate the wishes of the voters. Geogre 03:42, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Shrine FAC[edit]

I've fixed the references issue, and made a couple of other minor changes - would you be prepared to reconsider your objection?

Oh, and while I'm here, have you seen the m:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians? Ambi 15:32, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I will, of course, reverse the objection. As for the other.... What the hell is up with folks lately? Netoholic and SimonP are both trying very publically to destroy VfD. Anthony continues his position that all "non-notable" stuff be kept. This is nuts. Geogre 16:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I have created a preliminary version of Wikipedia:VfD decisions not backed by current policies/poll. Your comments would be much appreciated. - SimonP 17:08, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hope I didn't conflict you[edit]

Geogre, I hope I didn't edit conflict you when I nipped in and out of John Vanbrugh a short while ago, in case you were working there. Sorry about that, I was being spontaneous and adding a couple of dots in the Provoked Wife" section, for want of which the whole half section turned italic just like this, so please just ignore it if you get the chance and paste your version over it (the way you described in your e-mail message to me).--Bishonen 22:00, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, no conflict. I was only in and out for a second, myself. I saw that Lord Godolphin glowing red and didn't like it. I thought, "Hmm, Godolphin is really, really important, because he's the center of The Cabal, and the Sunderland government is what caused Temple to be played a fool (and he was played a fool), so we need an article on him, if we don't have one." I went to Google and did a search for "Lord Godolphin," since I didn't know the real name. First two hits were to Wikipedia mirrors. I found out his real name (Sidney Godolphin, 1st Lord Godolphin) and saw that we have an article on him (from guess where?) and thought I'd blue link that. Since get-out clause was right next to it and it had been bugging me, I changed it, figuring that the American Wikipedians would have been more likely to have created an article for "escape clause" than that. So I made those two changes. Total editing time about 0:0:15.
Yes. Why did you ask if I wanted you to copyedit, then? --Bishonen 16:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Because I wasn't copy editing. I was fixing a link. I thought I was fixing two links. Geogre 16:35, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oops, I just posted a somewhat tighter version of the Haymarket fiasco, and unintentionally deleted your John Rich. I'll be putting him back soon, or you please do it if you're in the neighborhood before I am. We seem to be at cross purposes above. I meant to say, why did you ask if I wanted you to copyedit, and when I said yes, please, I'm dead, I'd really appreciate it, didn't? If you didn't mean so soon, I quite understand, and that's fine. I just assumed you were speaking in Wikipedia time, you know, and I replied in that mode. But you can't think I want to bug you or be a stress factor in real time.
Oh. Today's not one of the good days for me. I slept 10 hours for no reason, so the pathology is either extending its roots, or I've got a cold. At any rate, I'm in no kind of place.
BTW, did you look at the thing I said, way back, was "Anglicizing?" I believe it was not your material, and it was a question of a single phrase's idiom. Perhaps I was Americanizing. I don't know, but it was trivial stuff.
You speak at random. But there's no need to suddenly revive the way back, I only mentioned it to explain something.
I don't. I was explaining that we all can miss idiom, and I had only fixed a single idiom and therefore included "anglicizing" in the edit comment, without a thought about how it would look to other people. I haven't much regard for appearances to the sorts of other people I find.
Oh, c'mon, you don't think I gave any thought to how it would look to other people? Literally did not occur to me. But I care about what you think of me. I was trying to say that the things you believed weren't the case.
Oh, sorry. Like I said, it's not a good day. I went to bed a few minutes ago (4:00 PM), and had the whole body racking that comes with missing a dose of medicine, which I feel is impossible. So I don't know what's going on. Anyway, it's just a bad day. Everyone has them.
I figure I'll wait for the Tale to actually show up as a Featured Article before I self-nominate Jonathan Wild. Geogre 01:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Or to be moved off the nomination list into some sort of actual FA queue, at least? That seems a good idea. There's something on the FAC page about not nominating several articles at once — that may not be strictly relevant, but it suggests the same general idea. How long's the Tale going to sit there, though? With the votes it's got, it's surely ready to be moved.--Bishonen 17:22, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Makes sense. There are people (won't say what sort) who know every detail of that process. I don't mind having my name in lights, but I've written a lot of good stuff in the past, and I've never thought of FAC, except when the FA's have been trivial. I note on the FAC page that there are a lot of trivial things nominated, putting people in the position of having to find a specific flaw with the article to keep it off the main page. One can't really say, "I object, because this is goofy juvenalia" or "this is demotic." Not that crusty and fusty is the answer, but some things kind of ... dominate. Geogre 19:21, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I read somewhere that Raoul does the moving of pages etc. on FAC. You know, you got nearly exclusively great votes, but then there was this weird debate about basically one vote, and it must have been a lot of work, just replying to it as it got more and more unreasonable. ("Are you sure there's not a chance that anybody had a contrary opinion in the past 300 years? Because if there is, you need to cite it." Yeah, that'll make a readable article.) I'm thinking maybe having to defend John Vanbrugh like that would be too scarifying. I don't have your head of steam for these things, you power arguer.--Bishonen 20:25, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You don't really have to, I think. My feeling is that Giano will get involved, for one thing, and the nominator may have drawn some of the wrath associated with the Tale. I'm not sure, but I think there were histories there before my little article showed up. It was exasperating, though. I just had something on the talk page to the article that gives a potential reader even more information about the Tale. On the one hand, I wanted to say, "Look, the information I'm giving is information no one has!" to indicate that I was writing a better intro to the book than you're going to get at most universities, and then not saying that, because I'd be accused of "original research." One would like to cite everything, but if I felt like doing that, I'd be contacting publishers. Geogre 20:37, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My guess is that Tub will be an FA before the week is out; Raul is the person who does the actual move. I'm sorry if my nominating the article caused you a lot of unwanted headaches, but there are so many FAs on daft subjects as it is and I am determined to get as many good literature-related articles as possible featured to try to redress the balance a bit (I have been doing so for about a year now and about 40% of the Literature FAs were nominated by and/or worked on by me). I do not have any particular history with any of the objectors, so I do not think it fair to say I drew the wrath. Some people, quite rightly in many respects, will always find a way an article could be improved and will object on that grounds. I do not think that personal animosity has anything to do with it. If the Wild and John Vanbrugh articles are nominated, you can count on my vote for both. Unconditionally. I hope you may consider nominating any other articles you have done and which you consider to be of this quality because, as you say yurself, 'there are a lot of trivial things nominated' and nominating non-trivial things is the best way to do something about it. Filiocht 10:21, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Filiocht, I sincerely apologize if I gave even the slightest impression of ingratitude or aspersions in my remarks. I had intended only to reassure Bishonen that some of the arguing that I went through (most of it my own fault for being haughty) with the Tale would not happen with John Vanbrugh. I know that each page has its regulars and its own personality. I'm regarded as one of the ugliest of the angels of death on VfD, I think (well, a hanging judge, anyway, but not usually mean about it), and there are people there who write automatically for or against based on the weathercock of others. I was speculating that perhaps there were personalities involved on FAC that neither Bishonen nor I had any knowledge of. It was just speculation and trying to find a way to be reassuring. Not that Bishonen is fragile or anything, but we all get dissuaded when we're working sometimes 6 hours a day to make an article perfect, and we see another article get hammered on the nomination. Anyone would. Since I didn't have another explanation, I was wondering aloud (also because you said in the nomination that you "already had a self-nom" going, so I thought perhaps that was an indication of a battle or something). Purely a guess, and by no means any indication of my feelings or thoughts. I sincerely apologize for any appearances to the contrary.
I was amazed by your user page. I had not thought there were other Litgeeks about. I knew of Bishonen, and Dbpsmith certainly drinks from the Piereian spring, but the people who know who Harriet Monroe are are outnumbered by the people who know every species of Pokemon by a factor of 50. Indeed, the HD article was exceptionally good and full, and, despite my greatest querulous instincts, I could find nothing to say to make it better except a remedial reading section for those not aware of the history of Modernism.
Again, I apologize for any appearance of anything but sincerest gratitude and admiration. Geogre 00:03, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bad day[edit]

Sorry it's a bad day. If, but only if, you feel like relaxing (?) by giving your opinion on a small matter, perhaps you'd like to think about whether John Vanbrugh needs a chronology or timeline? Giano and I kind of do, because it's confusing the way the man has all these big overlapping projects, especially the building projects, that go on for years and years. I know I'm grateful when a book has some sort of schema in such cases, that you can turn to when you're trying to get a clear picture. That's why we tried the bolded years that were there when the page was first nominated, if you remember. So, right now we have another experiment on the page, with years in the headlines. One of us (cough, cough) feels they're unsightly and unhelpful, though. So I've put a suggestion for an alternative, a bulleted list at the end of the article (but clearly announced in the TOC so people could still find it), on Giano's Talk page. We differ about which is better, so, if you feel like it, please lend us your unprejudiced eye. Of course the list would add more size and more scrolling length, shudder, and anything that makes the page even longer is undesirable. It's a bit of a monster anyway. Oh, yes, and how about having neither? That's always an alternative, too. --Bishonen 21:52, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think a chronology is a good idea. I think the bolded years are a bit of an eye sore. The FAC voters will certainly object to them, because they vary from common practice. Inasmuch as they look different from other articles, they stick out. A chronology is a lot better; however, I think it can be addressed in the prose at the head.
Addressed in the prose at the head? You really think so? But how on earth? You don't think that would ruin the Lead section, that's supposed to satisfy so many other requirements (like not being boring)? Hey, did you check out how long the chronological table we made is (now posted on both our Talk pages)? Do you think there's unnecessary stuff in it, apart from the dumb naval battle?
I haven't looked yet, but I will now. What I meant was this (well, more later, but this is phrasing), "Like a true gentleman scholar of the 18th century, Vanbrugh did not confine his work to only one endeavor. He was both an architect and a playwright, often simultaneously. See the Chronology, below, for a year-by-year outline of Vanbrugh's accomplishments."
 :-) There will be no celebrations of the 18C gentleman out of my pinko keyboard, you'll have to add those yourself.--Bishonen 10:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I.e. Just when you're in the "Public life" you warn the reader in advance that your discussion will be chronologically overlapping and that a reader wanting a synchronous discussion should look to the chronology. In other words, tell the reader, in prose, that a chronology is needed, but put the chronology at the end. Geogre 00:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Very good.--Bishonen 10:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also, you're now up against mismatched headings. We have "Early Life" and then plays and architecture, and then "the man," followed by "legacy." Just from the point of view of balance, these don't match. My suggestion would be Early Life, Public Career (sub to plays and architecture), and Legacy. The Public career could be set off with a paragraph explaining that the guy had two careers and that a chronology at the end will help keep clear some of the parallel and simultaneous actions.

Oh, so a chronology at the end? I thought, above, that you meant for the chronology to be in the Lead section.
Uh... how did you mean about the Lead section?

It can also say that as a grown up, he was known for...(the "The Man" section). That then makes the Legacy much more logically placed. Anyway, that's what I see. Geogre 13:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Geogre. I expect you're right about the structure, though there isn't space in my head for fully taking it in right now. A separate intro paragraph for Public career is certainly brilliant.
Yes. It would be something like:
Lead: JV was....
Early Life: Parentage and background and education and arms. Additionally, I recommend a sentence explaining how a sugar baker was definitely a noble thing (connection to the royal charters of the mercantile system and part of the rum-sugar-slaves triangle that generated so much wealth for London).
Public Life: Caution about his doing both and advisory about chronology. Morals and reputation, activity in politics and alliance with the Kit-Kats (Whig whig whiggy).
Legacy as both playwright and architect (currently only covers his rep as an architect).
Huh? But half of Legacy's about plays, I even mention Ibsen ! ;-) Anybody who knows "A Journey to London" and knows Ibsen will laugh derisively, but I don't think there are three people in the world. I know the Legacy bit's severely patchy, is that what you meant? I'd like to have a little more about modern performances, but I have no means of finding out that stuff. (Oh, and I reverted your change about The Relapse being now again to be seen in its original state or something like that, because it's not, nothing like. I mean, you know what modern stage performances of classics are like. They're interpretations. It won't be censored any more, so I call it "uncut", but it won't be a lot like the original, either.) In haste, back later.--Bishonen 10:38, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I hadn't read the article that day. It is now covering both, so that comment was out of time. I'd still rather see "original text" rather than just "uncut," since the latter seems to suggest only that a bad scene or dirty words were cut, as opposed to a question of actual rewriting and active Bowdlerizing. Whether people play it straight or not, well, I'd never assume there is such a thing.
The bit about the gentleman was just a hint at how to work in the fact that a chronology was coming up. I was just making clear what I was thinking when I said that it should be "in prose" as well as in table.
Last night, I put in one sentence about commissions in the officer corps. I couldn't figure any way of emphasizing the mercantile angle, since your sentences precluded any additions with their clause structure. You and I both know about officer commissions, its being clear from thousands of sources to us, but those whose history goes back only to Reagan will be clueless on the significance. They won't even realize the Earl's regiments' significance, but that's not the problem to be addressed in this article.
I see that A Tale of a Tub has gone over to officially an FAC. Soon time to nominate Jonathan Wild, I guess. Geogre 15:44, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
E-texts of plays and home pages of buildings.
That's my idea, anyway. You know me and how I am about organization. It's my special mania. Geogre 00:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How you doin dere? The server is doing that full scale logging out every time I make a move, also the Return of the Molasses, so I'll just tell you that this is Bishonen.-- 19:11, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I went on IRC earlier, when the servers seemed down. The word is that one or more of the Apache web servers are having a headache, so the database and hard disk performance is all fine, but there is a bad bulb somewhere in the string of Christmas lights. They're working on it.
I'm not having as bad a day as yesterday, but not great. I shall be moved. It won't be until after the election, though. That's important to me. Geogre 00:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Thank you very much for your vote for my adminship. I greatly appreciate your support. ffirehorse 00:14, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)


IANAP (I am not a psychiatrist) but every year or so I run into something on the Net and wonder: is this a schizophrenic? There never seems to be any point in leaving messages on the talk pages of anons, and we certainly don't need more submissions like this one, but when I run into one of these I always wonder what to do. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 01:14, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Oh, that's a good one, alright. I think it's not quite schizophrenic, alas. You may not have my extensive training in Frosh, a conlang created by Freshman English essay writers all over the US. Frosh has its own rules, but they're rather like the rules of Newtonian motion: they're all about reacting to the professor. One predictable reaction is for the students to puff up like cuttle fish and shoot ink out their backsides in an effort to entirely cloud the issue. Since straightforward prose got a D- last time, the student decides that the style wasn't "academic" (florid) enough, and so prepositions begin to swirl like dandruf. What I'm saying is that I think I can translate that article. Here it is: "There's this dude named Pica, and I think he's a wanker. Every time you argue with him, he makes stuff up. He thinks he's a knowitall! I want to make Picquice a word everybody knows so that no one will like Pica anymore!" Sadly, it's just another "nyah-nyah" article. Geogre 01:37, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for the improvements and congrats on A Tale of a Tub making FA. Filiocht 14:04, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, and thank you for nominating the Tale. In a way, I don't blame the objectors. Anyway, I figured I'd self-nom my Jonathan Wild and then have done with FAC altogether. I only had 2 FAC articles, I thought. The Tale is a bit esoteric, but I think everyone can dig Wild. We'll see. Geogre 20:34, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Better day, I hope[edit]

How're the flu-like symptoms not due to the flu? I still don't get it about the when and if not caring when you muck about in the prose, too involved, could you explain for meaner capacities, please? We'd love it if you'd copyedit, but I've said so before. Not right this moment, though, as Giano may be editing as we speak. I just told him John Vanbrugh is his if he wants it for another hour, i. e. until 3:15 PM Geogre time.

I think we're pretty well done, except that I need to refactor the former Van the Man section. My Haymarket stuff in there is out of proportion, not to mention horrible, and serious Whiggery is needed. Just ignore that bit if you're editing after 3:15.

On the other hand, reading comments on FAC here, I'm realizing that the article will need to be three times longer than it is, and have all claims of anything being the case surrounded by a cloud of references. I've already dulled down the Early life section with See Downes and According to McCormick, how boringly it reads now. :-( And I still want, for instance, to point out that the reason the Encyclopedia Britannica (the current one) and the DNB have different facts and different years from me is that they repeat relayed gossip that Theophilus Cibber made up in 1760, while I use actual scholarly secondary sources. But I'm sure it would be "original research" of me to say that Kerry Downes has done research and has disproved the old anecdotes, I would have to find several authorities who say it, as well as some who gainsay it (though there won't be any), or the picture won't be complete. Geogre? Have I got it right that you're offering offer to copyedit John Vanbrugh, and also to nominate it? I know you want to help, I do appreciate it, but do you realize that the combo of the two would mean self-nominating it? I also think that you nominating it would look like a slight to W, the last thing we want to commit.

Geogre? I was just wondering whether you'd noticed the latest message from Filiocht, higher up this page. Only, it didn't look like you'd replied to it, as I kind of supposed you'd want to. Apologies if I'm just misunderstanding or missing stuff and sticking my nose in where it's not wanted.--Bishonen 18:29, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Dunciad[edit]

I'd missed that you had started The Dunciad, that is the coolest news I ever heard! I'm watching it. :-) John Vanbrugh is about done now. Turns out the Kit-cat Club was originally a secret group of "patriots who saved Britain", i. e. brought about the Glorious Revolution, and young John Vanbrugh was the most daring of them all, galloping through the night with messages to William of Orange stuffed into his handsome flouncy shirt. What Vanbrugh needs is to have a historical novel written about him. Oh, and (nonchalantly) I also put in an opening paragaraph about how the EB and DNB are full of crap. Hmmm? Well, I had to. Wikipedia seriously is the only tertiary source for JV now. The others basically just repeat stories invented by Theophilus Cibber in 1760, and are full of typically wild Cibberian guesswork dates, which completely obscure the William of Orange connection. How are you, darlin'?--Bishonen 20:58, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What's funny about that is that Cibber Pere must have known, unless he was as apolitical as he said he was, which seems impossible in that age.
No, no, not funny, perfectly to be expected. I don't think Colley or other contemporaries did know about the pre-history of the KKK, it was still a live issue and still a secret. Downes only manages to tease out two sources for it, extraordinarily little if it were known. Haven't researched Theo myself (writing a tertiary source here), but I strongly suspect he's relaying, as an elderly man, what he can remember of the stuff his dad used to ramble on about, and that that was only disconnected details. Betcha Colley had no idea what Vanbrugh was doing to end up in the Bastille, so he pulls the date 1690 out of his hat for the arrest at Calais, and it ends up in today's EB via Theo. Then who's going to even think William of Orange? 1690. I ask you. Colley's own Apology is full of errors, of chronology especially, and I think he admits quite cheerfully that he can't recollect the early stuff very well. Well, he obviously hadn't kept any notes when the theatrical conflicts were going down in the 1690s, for instance, and then in 1740 he writes down his reminiscences of complicated chains of events, how much would you or I get straight? Click on my link to the EB Vanbrugh article in "Early life" to see what a surprising number of errors they manage in such a short text. I think I'll have to go back and be a bit ruder about it. (Fragile? Me?) Btw, it's funny when people ask why you don't have any web sources for Jonathan Wild. ("Because this is the web source"). I expect we'll get the same question. Feel better, Geogre. --Bishonen 01:28, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
My Tale article is pretty much #1 on Google, and my Wild is, too, so I feel the responsibility to be right. Not that either of these is via Wikipedia. Rather some mirror has the top spot. All the same, I feel good knowing that some genuinely useful and correct information is getting into those late-night book reports and English papers. Kit-Cats.... Interesting subject, that. There were at least three Kit-Cat Clubs, I believe. Godolphin, who enters the story, was quite the Walpole of his age. He had a briefer career and a title, but he was quite the puppetmaster. Charles II had to play him, and he played Charles II. When William came, it was an all Godolphin ministry, for a while. Hmm, Somers was his opponent? Temple comes into this. The treaty that Temple was sent to negotiate with France was, in fact, a ploy. The administration didn't want the treaty. They wanted peace with the Dutch, not France, and they used Temple as a feint. As soon as Temple, with his old views of cavalier graces, had occupied the French and the alliance with Holland had been forged, Temple was forced from office. That whole thing was The Cabal. I don't know if there is an article on The Cabal that refers to this coalition of ministers or not, but I'd need some serious research time to write it, as I don't trust any secondary sources. Anyway, I don't know if the Addison Kit-Cat Club is the same, mutated, or a new one. Then there is that 19th century one that's a nostalgia trip.
How am I? Pretty numb. Geogre 00:11, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oh, yes, well, you're right about Colley being a mess. He was surely no Boswell, and Boswell has chronological errors. These people did not believe that "the child is father to the man," as that had to wait for Wordsworth and Hartley and others, so their interests in early years, in particular, were minimal. That's one reason that you don't find anyone talking about their adolescence and why it's a devil for us to find sources. Colley's Apology is more chatty than anything, and it really is a celebration of himself in a sneaky way.
I don't know Theo much at all. I think I've heard him mentioned by you more than anyone, and I pride myself on knowing some fairly tangential folks (Godolphin, e.g.). I could spend months with a DNB. The stuff I had about Godolphin playing Temple, above, is from Elias's Swift at Moor Park, which is a good read.
You believe the KK Club of the Williamites was the same as the one of Addison, that it just grew tamely Whig and not so radically so? At any rate, that would make Vanbrugh not just Whig but rather powerfully anti-Catholic, and that's important for figuring out Pope's reaction to him, as well as the High Church side of the Tory groups. That's quite an interesting tidbit. It was one thing to prefer a Protestant succession, and it was quite another to rebel (gloriously) for one.
Yes, I wasn't going to say that we are the web source for Wild, but we are. As short as my article is, it's heads and shoulders above what else is on the web. I could find an e-text of Fielding, but not Defoe. It's not worthwhile for me to work for Gutenberg to transcribe the Defoe, either, esepcially since I don't trust the edition of it I have (dum-dum Nokes). Geogre 01:42, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I hope I make the tidbit clear, what do you think? Maybe there should be more fanfare about it. Dunno about any anti-Catholicism of Van's (only reading the bits of Downes I have to, it's a doorstop book), but I would suppose so from the general setup, yes. Downes assumes V was forever anti-French after being in French prison for four and a half years, which seems reasonable.

Hope you got my e-mail. I had no idea "hearsay" was a hard or technical or ynkehorne term, do you think it is? I could put "guesswork" or something instead, only I need about five synonyms in the paragraph. But I should absolutely stop obsessing about that text and let it take its fortunes. Geogre, I've been trying to phone you, do you have to be online yet not on irc? I may go to bed soon, I never seem to get any sleep.--Bishonen 20:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, you have to let it go. I don't know how "hearsay" was confusing, either, but, well, no need for synonymns. I suppose there are people who use the word and not know that it's "hearsay" instead of "hear say," but that's the only guess I have. You did bring out the tidbit, I thought. Remember that I hadn't read your article since its very early days, so I didn't know to what degree you were bringing forward some of these points. (I actually think the lead is too long, but hell if I'll say that anywhere but here.) Anyway, I don't think it's too long, or, more to the point, I don't think it's a good idea to break Vanbrugh into 2-3 articles. I think the resulting splits would be uninteresting and unused. I did get your e-mail.
If you feel like it, try me tomorrow. I'm more optimistic in the mornings, and I feel less bad about your schedule when we talk then. However, today has been another Bad Day, with half a day of sleep and prophetic dreams (literally). The disease worsens. At the same time, there's every chance tomorrow I'll wake up fresh and early -- no telling. Anyway, I hope you do call. Geogre 20:57, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Thanks for your message about John Vanbrugh I appreciate it, it would be nice to have some more votes of support,but at least, so far, there are no objections either, which is a suprise, as I was expecting everyone to say it was too long. I suppose though the subject is a little specialised so only people who are interested in architecture, and literature are going to go over there for a look. Giano 10:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it may have enough, though I don't really know what "enough" is. Congratulations on the work. There are times, aren't there, when you'd like to add a Wikipedia article to one's CV? :-) This would be a good one. Geogre 13:47, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Just letting you know that I thought you might be interested in taking a look at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/High schools, as well as what I wrote on Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy. Lowellian (talk)[[]] 05:39, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Schools arguement[edit]

It is good you are developing this arguement. I'd suggest to train your line of thinking as to why Harvard is included but not some of these schools. One guess is that it is the notibility bar, why not set your bar low enough so it can include schools? --ShaunMacPherson 22:52, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This and that[edit]

Hi, I've been away for a few days and am just now getting to all your messages: first off, lets forget about anything silly and just say that it is great to see so many good 'high culture' articles on FAC these days; heaven knows there is enough mass-media stuff there. It's a very different place to VfD, which I try to avoid most of the time now, although I see the need to get rid of crap out of the system.

My own literary background is non-academic; I'm a humble poet (my username is the Irish word for what in English is called poetry) working in a mode that stems from that strange thing that happened between, say, 1890 and 1915, hence the interest. I have a lot of stubs/short articles I started that I need to expand, but decided a while back that I'd like to bring all the big figures up to scratch. I will tackle Pound one of these days. It was reading him as a teenager that made me what I am now, so a bit like writing about one's grandfather. Makes me nervous, but I did do some work on him a while back. of course the knee-jerk 'he was a fascist', 'his translations contain errors' brigades will probably stop it ever being an FA!

There are a lot of other things one could say about someone like H.D. (her appalling treatment of her partners, male and female, her life-long lust for Pound) that would never get past the POV barrier, so I try to stick to the facts and fairly standard critical receptions, and I re-read the work of the people I'm writing about as I work on the articles, so that's a treat.

Take care, and keep up the good work. Filiocht 08:40, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

  • Oh, and thanks for your overly kind words about my prose. Filiocht 09:48, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

High schools[edit]

A debate in the form of two position papers might not be a bad idea. Keep in mind, however, that there are probably a lot more than two views at work here: not just strong inclusionism or strong exclusionism but everything inbetween. Lowellian (talk)[[]] 21:21, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Village Pump Proposal[edit]

Geogre, I would like your input on my proposal (or some variant of my proposal) on the village pump. Thank you. Posiduck 23:20, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done. A form of the version system that has an out-valve is ok by me, but it does require software changes, as well as policy changes and a change of editor habits. I'm not optimistic about its chances, but I'm not especially opposed, if there is a pruning facility in it. Geogre 02:04, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Society of Biblical Literature[edit]

I don't think that it's Wikilove. Maybe, in light of your comment about the 2nd amendment, it should be Wikifear. But the, uh, article?, seems to me so clearly the product of someone whose mind is not functioning perfectly that it seems to me unseemly for everyone pile on in ridiculing it. There's probably a language barrier, too. I can't even begin to imagine what this person thought he was doing. Did you see that he gave his name and address (or a name and address, anyway) in his first edit? It seems as if he has some vague idea that this is a matchmaking site where he can pick up women, or something... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 10:22, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree, except that the person is sane enough to use the Internet, so one wonders how mentally disabled he or she can be. However, the title of the article also suggests one of those trolling things where enemies of feminism post hate screeds on feminist sites, atheists on Christian sites, etc., as the title is Biblical Literature and the author reveals that he has figured out there there is no God. Also, the article keeps mentioning match or meetup or some other site, and that, to me, suggests that either the person is so insane as to think he went one place when he went the other, or that someone else posted his favorite crazy-person-posting from that match-maker site to Wikipedia as an act of vandalism. Anyway, I agree that we ought to be nice, but I also think that the fellow is in public and exposing himself to such things and such criticism. Geogre 14:10, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


If you have time, could you run your eye over Lady Gregory for me? Thanks in advance, Filiocht 11:21, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)


I've been thinking about the various VfD discussions going on on the Pump and have come up with the following highly impractical sussestions. Do you feel they have any merit? Filiocht 12:16, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)

Draft ideas for the reform of Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion:

  • Listing of article requires a detailed rationale for why it should be deleted and does not count as a vote.
  • No voting for 48 hours after an article is posted. This is a cooling off period.
  • Users who contributed to the article are excluded from voting but are encouraged to make a statement or set of statements detailing why they feel the article should be retained.
  • No user accounts created after the article was listed may vote.
  • All votes to delete must respond to the statements for retention.
  • If an article changes significantly during the voting process, all voters should be requested, via their talk pages, to review their votes.
  • 70% of votes cast are required for deletion to occur with a minimum vote requirement of five votes.


Hi, Geogre, my condolences, I hope you have revived after the shock of it. I like the Neil Young article that's at the top of the FAC list right now a lot, and thought to vote for it, but then I considered how ignorant I am in these matters. Maybe I ought not vote on "neato subject" and "cool writing" alone. It looks complete enough to me, but what do I know? Perhaps you could tell me if you see any obvious gaps in it? (But as for blaming the article or the author for having a lot of redlinks, I don't think that's fair.)--Bishonen 22:12, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I quibble with it. In truth, I could quibble a ton more. The article repeats some of the common myths (that "Sweet Home" was a response to "Southern Man" instead of "Alabama"). There is a lot more to say about Buffalo Springfield, and it would be nice to have some hint for people who know "For What It's Worth" but don't know its title, ("Stop, children. What's that sound?/ Everybody look what's going down"), and there are a lot of others, but it would be good to see him make it. Oh, and there could be not only different, but more pictures. It's not like there aren't a lot of pictures of him. It would be good to show him in his different modes, including as Shakey on the International Harvesters albums and his new movie.
What a black, black day today has been. What an historically dark four years the next will be. I think we just ratified Hitler on the grounds that he's against gay marriage. Geogre 04:09, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations on the Wild article making it. Filiocht 08:39, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Filiocht. Yesterday was a bad, bad day, what with Oliver Cromwell getting elected president for the first time. I get this feeling that voters were saying the same things as voters in Germany in 1936 were, "Well, I disagree with the whole genocide thing, but he's all for morals." Geogre 14:10, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Even from this distance, it was a black day. Still, the world (as in World Series) is safe from gay marriage and prayers will be said in the White House for four more years! Small consolation for me: When I look at our Irish government, I despair, but them I say, at least it's not the U.S. Filiocht 14:16, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
It was made much worse by the fact that we "left" people (in continental Europe, I'd be a moderate; here, I'm a socialist) really thought we were going to win. We didn't think it was going to be very close. The vileness of my countrymen surprises me every few years. They actually voted for president on the basis of gay marriage. The President has nothing to do with it, and Kerry said that he was against it. The voters didn't care. A good many thought Bush did a bad job with the economy, the war, the choice of war, and then voted Bush because they had been convinced that voting for Kerry was immoral. It's astonishing. It was an evening for doing my Flann O'Brien impression and drinking myself blind. Geogre 14:37, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If I lived in the States, I'd probably be burned at the stake, being a practicing atheist who would never think to ask a fellow being what their sexuality was and who quite admires Situationalism as a world view. But here I'm just an ordinary husband and father in a pretty normal job who happens to be a slightly odd poet betimes and doesn't watch enough TV because of all those strange books he reads. Land of the free? Not really, because our government do stink somewhat, but at least I don't feel in real danger from the state. Anyway, enough for now. The Wild cheeded me up, as did H.D. and the voting on John Dee so far. Isn't it nice to have this virtual escape route for a few hours each day. Filiocht 14:50, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
There are plenty of atheists in the US, but that's the thing. We're a 50/50 nation, and the two halves can't even talk to each other. The left has stayed in place, but the right has gone farther and farther and farther to the right. If you're of the left half, you're a mainstream Christian, a non-mainstream Christian, an atheist, an agnostic, etc. However, if you're of the right half, you are very clearly an evangelical who believes that the world is going to end very soon and that it is the duty of the US to prepare for and create the conditions of Armageddon (quite true; Bob Woodward's latest book has Bush saying that he didn't worry about history's verdict because he didn't think there would be any history). It's depressing as it can be. I'm looking over the Lady Gregory now for copy editing, doing it a little bit at a time. Mostly, it's modifiers moving closer to their objects and a few commas where the sentences cannot bear their length without them. Geogre 15:06, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that old Armageddon thing is truly scary. Thanks for the Lady G improvements. My work on this page has been even more disjointed than usual and spread out over a longer period of time than I'd like, which is my feeble excuse. I'm one of those odd creatures who prefers pen and paper to keyboard and screen. I still have a typewriter, too. Filiocht 15:10, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Typewriters: the truly Y2K compliant word processor. Question about Gregory: at the end, you have poems that Yeats wrote there. You didn't list "The Swans at Coole Park." Didn't he write that there? (Or was it called the Wild Swans at Coole?) Yeats has never been my favorite, and I've always agreed with O'Brien and Joyce about Lady Gregory, so I don't remember all my Yeats that well. At any rate, she became quite a figure of fun. "The Old Lady Says No" is one piece of evidence, and you mentioned Joyce and Gogarty. I put in the bit of At Swim-Two-Birds that makes fun: "Three fifties of fosterlings could play against his backside, so large was the great Finn."
Situationalism.... Yeesh. Well, sort of. I'm far more Marxist, and I think that the Situataionalist stuff is ultimately narcissistic and politically irresponsible. Freeing one's mind is always good for the mind, but it doesn't really do much for the poor people sitting in Notre Dame when the fake priest comes in. It's a withdrawal from the world amidst claims that one's play will change the world. If you haven't, you might want to check out Greil Marcus's Lipstick Traces, which purports to be a history of rock and roll but is really how rock, Situationalism, and Deconstruction are all tied together. Geogre 15:18, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, I forgot the Wild Swans. Yes, she became a figure of fun but she doesn't quite deserve all of it (most of it, maybe) we're so far away from that world that we overlook just how seriously the Victorians took their sense of social duty (when they weren't busy exploiting the poor). She did what she could by her own lights to help Irish culture, but the world had passed her by before she really got started. But I've been reading hte diaries and they really are quite interesting. Anyway, I wanted to complete the set with the Abbey Theatre, john Millington Synge and W.B. Yeats articles I had previously polished up. Thanks for the help.
I'm not that whole-hearted a situationalist, but liked the way they tied in with Bill Williams' line 'a new world is nothing but a new mind' (approximately from memory); I do wish more of their ideas were grounded in things. My true philosophical hero, if I have one at all, is Charles Darwin. Revolutions come slowly and through knowledge is the lesson I learned there. Yeats I admire, but he doesn't move me in the way the old fascist Pound does, or as Joyce does. Louis Zukofsky is better again, for me, but that's a real minority taste. Filiocht 15:46, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
I was enticed by the Situationalists, too. I thought a lot of what they were doing was the logical extension of Dada, but also that they did have a political agenda that was rooted in hopelessness. E.P. Thompson argues that nostalgia is a sign of a defeated class. To some extent, withdrawal is, too. When you realize that you're never going to make people change, you start trying to create personal revolutions. It's the alternative to quietism. You make yourself the revolution. It's attractive.
I'm still a TS Eliot fan, despite the years and finding out how limited he was. His imitations of LaForgue interest me. Portrait of a Lady is a nice example, and I like the satire in his Choruses from "The Rock." His Anglo-Catholicism was bitterly purchased, too, and not assumed as a cloak for personal insecurity, I think. There was a rage for sanity in those days, I think, and some sought Order. Pound went one way, Auden another, Yeats and the goofier mystics another, but they all needed reassuring in the face of the insanity of men with no faces after WWI. We are as historically bewildered now as ever in history, and the upsurge in fundamentalism of all stripes is perhaps another suckling onto order Order ORDER, a framework wherein good and evil get capital letters. I'm not Marxist enough to think that all these things are sublimations of the class struggle, but I can't help but see production models and corporations as being a big part of it. Where is identity, when value has been evacuated?
After the Modernists, I rather like John Berryman (oooh, forgot I pretty much wrote that article, or did a ton on it, and hit up against someone kind of edit warring me, way back when). Anyway, a favorite philosopher has to be Richard Hooker and Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity. Christianity is much bigger than the literalists and fundamentalists, and it will be finally destroyed, as has Islam, when these fringe persons succeed in speaking for all and imposing their narrow, anti-rationalist views of despair on the rest. Geogre 17:48, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, Christianity has been in the past responsible for so much of what matters in western culture that it is all the sadder to see what's happening now (meaning the last 500 years, really). Funny thing, but I was just thinking the other day that I hould re-read Eliot soon, as a teenager, I loved his work. Hooker I do not know, I'm afraid, but I'll look him up.
The retreat into the inner revolution is typical of so many of us who grew up in the 1960s now, I think, because the dreams we had then have gone down the drain and we just ran out of ideas. A throwaway essay of mine on how/why I think poetry could still be important is available here, if you are at all interested. I make no great claims for it, by the way, but writing it got something out of my system. Filiocht 12:28, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)


I wasn't trying to save the article. But as I said, I think "substub" is the correct description, and "garbage" was unfair and verges on biting the newbie. It is even—you'll probably hate me for pointing this out—perfectly accurate as far as it goes, which isn't very far. And it performed the small but valuable service of pointing out that we didn't have, and needed, an entry for "European carp." If we hadn't had any entry on carp I would have voted to delete this one. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, quite. I simply couldn't resist the pun. The problem that I have is that we don't really solve the issues with redirects. We have the needs, and the substubs point out our needs, but, you know, what we've been needing for a long time is a Requested Articles system that works. There are people like me and you who are dependable authors, and we look to our own concerns (as we have every right to), and the people who do fill in and see the RA page are the new folks. Bless them for their efforts, but they often make mistakes. I wish there were a kind of pager system, or a way for Wikipedian by Interest and RA-by-field. If I know there is a literature of the 18th c. topic not covered, I lurch into action, but I admit to pretty much never looking at the RA page (because it's too small, not updated properly, and contains stuff I find too far from my areas). On the Carp vote, I was just funning so that I could get the "carping" in there. Geogre 01:03, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dee: mathematics[edit]

I thought a lot more about what you said, and added a section to John Dee making the mathematicism a lot more explicit. Thanks for the nudge. PRIIS 02:28, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opposition to Castro[edit]

Could you have another look at Opposition to Castro? I'm not sure what it was like when you looked at it (I gather is started out very POV), but at this point it looks to me like the nucleus of a good article. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:12, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I'll check my vote on VfD and adjust it accordingly. I disagreed all along with the idea that it was impossible to be NPOV. It still needs more, but it's better and is ready for more editors to come along. Geogre 22:07, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)