User talk:Ealdgyth/Archive 58
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Ealdgyth. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 55 | Archive 56 | Archive 57 | Archive 58 | Archive 59 | Archive 60 | → | Archive 65 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Your mission, should you choose not to be annoyed by it
Hello Ealdgyth, I'm Lingzhi, former Ling.Nut. I'm turning to you as the acknowledged expert in all things Middle Ages. My current onwiki pain is described here. Would it be hugely annoying to ask you to contribute a valid, solid, accurate, well-researched definition? Many thanks in advance Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Given the badgering I'm going through on Talk:House of Plantagenet, I'm not sure I want to step into any OTHER page. Especially not one where the main editor is one that calls me "a right pain". Ealdgyth - Talk 12:51, 30 June 2016 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk 12:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Lingzhi: Apologies to you and Ealdgyth if interference is not desired, but I've been looking at some books and they seem to indicate that scholars themselves disagree on the definition of a Crusade. Some books explicitly note this scholarly controversy. My opinion is that we should note this disagreement and describe the different views of historians. It would be a violation of NPOV to endorse a particular definition even when a competent historian could reasonably disagree. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 13:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'll try to look up some stuff later today, but in general, I agree with Biblioworm - definitions vary. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- Yes yes yes yes. Up above I didn't take a moment to explain that a brief discussion rather than a definition is of course very, very welcome, if that is the appropriate route. As my post on Talk:Crusades says, it makes me feel guilty to have a massively incorrect definition on a page that surely many high school students are constantly stealing for their homework. :-) I'm also sorry to hear that someone is chapping your hide, Ealdgyth. That sucks. I expect I will face similar in August or so. But thanks thanks thanks for anything you and/or Biblioworm add to that page. Tks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- I'll try to look up some stuff later today, but in general, I agree with Biblioworm - definitions vary. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
- That argument over there at Talk:House of Plantagenet seems really really long and involved, and I am traveling and have little or no time to devote to WP, but the thing that struck me was that although everyone seems to agree that general period info goes in England in the Late Middle Ages, there doesn't seem to be any link to that page on the FA article about Plantagenets. That lack of a link seems odd to me... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:58, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Maybe I'm crazy, then
Re this, I thought the issue was much simpler than the RfC framer put it: the equivalents of our bolded initial name in both the ODNB and Britannica incorporate "Sir", therefore we ought to do the same for consistency, regardless of what the "legal" name is. I expect our MoS regulars to be more interested in writing their own system than boring conformity with someone else's, but when I see someone acute like you blandly concurring with them, I'm inclined to think I've missed something. Where did I go wrong? Choess (talk) 15:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- We aren't a British publication - we're world-wide. No American or Indian or Australian publication would do something like consider "sir" as part of the person's name. We don't bold "Baron So-and-so" or "Bishop So-and-so" ... so why should we bold "sir so-and-so"? (The exception is, of course, the popes, which for some reason are named and titled "Pope So-and-so"..) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree. See, e.g., the "Encyclopedia of Virginia" Sir William Berkeley, the old "Columbia Encyclopedia" of 1950 Chandos, Sir John vs Cranmer, Thomas...English churchman. From the fragments of the defunct Encarta I can tease out through Google, I can get "Franklin, Sir John (1786–1847) British explorer" and "Becket, Thomas à (1118?-70), chancellor of England". These are all American publications, and "Sir" always seems to be included in the bold or smallcaps opening line that corresponds to our bolded name of the article subject in print encyclopedias. It's not particularly logical that "Sir" should be singled out in this way, and the fact that we do it for "Sir" and not, say, Chinese mandarins is undoubtedly a cultural artifact, but it's an English-language-specific cultural artifact, not a UK-specific cultural artifact. Sorry to be so obstinate, but having grown up a nerdy kid browsing American encyclopedias, it's very weird for me to see people claiming that no American publication would do precisely what I remember them doing. Choess (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- If Encarta used "Thomas a Becket" as the title of his article, they just showed themselves to be a not very reliable source (the 'a Becket' is a non-contemporary usage, probably only after the Reformation, in fact). And what the 1950 Columbia encyclopedia does isn't really helpful in saying what current encyclopedias do. It's not required and it's not really helpful. If we insist on bolding "sir" we should also insist on adding "baron/count/duke/bishop/etc" in front of every person as well as shoving "cardinal" into the middle of every name of post-reformation cardinals. I'd also be in favor of losing the post-nomials (CBE, etc) also, before someone points out that those are used also.I fight a longstanding fight to keep people inserting "saint" before various bishop's names. To me it's just a slightly less annoying version of the whole "PBUH" thing with Muhammad. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- So the version of the Columbia Encyclopedia I posted, because it's available online is too old, Britannica and ODNB are out of contention because they're from the UK, and Encarta is "not very reliable". What other current encyclopedias do you have in mind that might provide us with guidance on this question? If you favor discarding outside precedent in favor of something more reasonable and logical, that's a respectable position, but at least have the grace to admit that it's our own innovation, and a break with other comparable encyclopedias (who apparently did not follow the logic that "Sir" must be the equivalent of every other title). Choess (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think we need to follow other encyclopedia's in this - it makes more sense to follow the rest of our guidance and not insert honorifics/titles/etc. I'd be fine with putting all titles as disambiguation into parentheses, or at the least not bolding them in the beginning of the article. We already ARE inconsistent - we title the article John de Mowbray, 4th Baron Mowbray and bold that in the first line, but he was a knight also - but we don't have "Sir" in front of his name. (And GODS that's an awful article...) We're better off just using plain names across the board. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:28, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- As an aside, I really don't feel THAT strongly about it. I weighed in, and whatever the result is, is whatever the result is. It's very unlikely to affect my own editing - bishops and horses don't usually get knighthoods, after all. And most of my non-cleric editing is before the time of orders of knighthood and all that. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- OK, that's fair. Thanks for being a patient interlocutor; I took this up with you because I know you'd be able to explain your reasoning without going off. I think licensing the MoS enthusiasts to ignore clear precedent in favor of things that are more "sensible" or "logical" is generally a bad idea, but in practice that's probably going to happen anyway. I suspect the reason the precedent exists for "Sir" in other encyclopedias is that it "clings" to the first name in a way the other titles don't: one might refer to Sir John Chandos as "Sir John", but "Dr. John", "Mr. John", "Captain John", etc. would seem very odd. This also explains why "Lord" gets used like "Sir" in certain cases (e.g., "Lord Randolph Churchill") but never "The Hon.": calling the first "Lord Randolph" is natural enough, but "The Hon. John" would seem very strange, even though there's no a priori reason those two honorifics should be treated differently. Hence also the omission on Mowbray's article: after inheriting his barony, he'd be referred to as "Lord Mowbray", not "Sir John".
- Anyway, I also realize you must get frustrated dealing with anachronistic Victorian fluff projected back onto your bench of bishops and their contemporaries, so I do sympathize with your desire to see it toned down, even if I disagree. I don't feel that strongly about the bolding, per se—obsessiveness about that sort of minutia, rather than actual fact, has a bad prognosis—but these discussions tend to attract people who feel that NPOV requires us to be positive Levellers and deny distinctions that were very meaningful in their time. Choess (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- So the version of the Columbia Encyclopedia I posted, because it's available online is too old, Britannica and ODNB are out of contention because they're from the UK, and Encarta is "not very reliable". What other current encyclopedias do you have in mind that might provide us with guidance on this question? If you favor discarding outside precedent in favor of something more reasonable and logical, that's a respectable position, but at least have the grace to admit that it's our own innovation, and a break with other comparable encyclopedias (who apparently did not follow the logic that "Sir" must be the equivalent of every other title). Choess (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- If Encarta used "Thomas a Becket" as the title of his article, they just showed themselves to be a not very reliable source (the 'a Becket' is a non-contemporary usage, probably only after the Reformation, in fact). And what the 1950 Columbia encyclopedia does isn't really helpful in saying what current encyclopedias do. It's not required and it's not really helpful. If we insist on bolding "sir" we should also insist on adding "baron/count/duke/bishop/etc" in front of every person as well as shoving "cardinal" into the middle of every name of post-reformation cardinals. I'd also be in favor of losing the post-nomials (CBE, etc) also, before someone points out that those are used also.I fight a longstanding fight to keep people inserting "saint" before various bishop's names. To me it's just a slightly less annoying version of the whole "PBUH" thing with Muhammad. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree. See, e.g., the "Encyclopedia of Virginia" Sir William Berkeley, the old "Columbia Encyclopedia" of 1950 Chandos, Sir John vs Cranmer, Thomas...English churchman. From the fragments of the defunct Encarta I can tease out through Google, I can get "Franklin, Sir John (1786–1847) British explorer" and "Becket, Thomas à (1118?-70), chancellor of England". These are all American publications, and "Sir" always seems to be included in the bold or smallcaps opening line that corresponds to our bolded name of the article subject in print encyclopedias. It's not particularly logical that "Sir" should be singled out in this way, and the fact that we do it for "Sir" and not, say, Chinese mandarins is undoubtedly a cultural artifact, but it's an English-language-specific cultural artifact, not a UK-specific cultural artifact. Sorry to be so obstinate, but having grown up a nerdy kid browsing American encyclopedias, it's very weird for me to see people claiming that no American publication would do precisely what I remember them doing. Choess (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
broken link on Useful references I'm always using
- There's a link "Useful FA stuff" to a section of Cla68's page that does not seem to exist any longer. Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
TPSs...
Anyone have access to:
- this from ProQuest
- ProQuest or Sage journals (same article)
- ProQuest
- ProQuest
- Taylor & Francis
- ProQuest
- Ealdgyth - Talk 21:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- You might wanna try WP:RX... Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 23:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
- I will if the TPSs don't come through ... they usually do though. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- You have email. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Your undoing my edit to William_Zouche
Using “Roman Catholic” as the church of William_Zouche who died in 1352 is an anachronism because according to the Oxford English Dictionary Online the term “Roman Catholic” was first used in 1581. On the other hand, the term “English Church” was used in 1215 in the Magna Carta, which asserted that “the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired." If you insist on using an anachronism rather than a term that was in use before 1352, leave Zouche’s church as “Roman Catholic.” If you want to use a term that was in use during Zouche’s lifetime, undo your reversion. I leave it up to you because I will not fight about it. Vejlefjord (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- He was a member of the universal Western Catholic church - which is now known as the Roman Catholic Church. It's just as much an anachronism to use "English Church" as the term in use in 1385 would have been either Middle English or Church Latin. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Dear Ealdgyth,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)
- timestamp Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
Merry Christmas and happy new year
.jpg)
- timestamp Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Season's Greetings
 |
Wishing you a Charlie Russell Christmas! 🎄 |
| Best wishes for your Christmas Is all you get from me 'Cause I ain't no Santa Claus Don't own no Christmas tree. But if wishes was health and money I'd fill your buck-skin poke Your doctor would go hungry An' you never would be broke." —C.M. Russell, Christmas greeting 1914. Montanabw(talk) |
- timestamp Ealdgyth - Talk 13:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
For all your work
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| Just a small token of appreciation for all the great work that you have been doing to Medieval biography articles. Good stuff. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2016 (UTC) |
quick q
- Were the Gregorian reforms a reaction to the Great Schism (among other things), or was the schism one outcome of the Reforms? Tks Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think they were really linked, actually. (I'm assuming you mean the East-West Schism of 1054 not the Western Schism in 1378?) The Gregorian Reforms were based on a desire to root out secular influence in the church, and the East-West Schism is rooted in the cultural divide between the Byzantine areas and the Western areas. The Gregorian reforms were not really in reaction to the accusations of the Eastern church - they arose out of purely Western concerns about secular interests controlling church offices and lands. Given the "Caesaro-Papism" of the Eastern church and empire - they were unlikely to object to the practices that led to the Gregorian Reforms. Keep in mind this is MY quick answer - there may be secondary sources that state the Reforms influenced the Schism. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'm just doing a c/e of Crusades, and I feel it would help if I occasionally had some surface understanding of the issues. Some bits seem a little incoherent, e.g. the para beginning "Following the Gregorian Reform..." (which draws a link to the East-West Schism), the last para of the 13th century seems like it belongs in the beginning of that section, etc. I'll leave a note on the article's talk page and see what happens. Thanks! Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think they were really linked, actually. (I'm assuming you mean the East-West Schism of 1054 not the Western Schism in 1378?) The Gregorian Reforms were based on a desire to root out secular influence in the church, and the East-West Schism is rooted in the cultural divide between the Byzantine areas and the Western areas. The Gregorian reforms were not really in reaction to the accusations of the Eastern church - they arose out of purely Western concerns about secular interests controlling church offices and lands. Given the "Caesaro-Papism" of the Eastern church and empire - they were unlikely to object to the practices that led to the Gregorian Reforms. Keep in mind this is MY quick answer - there may be secondary sources that state the Reforms influenced the Schism. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)