User talk:Evan T Jones
Hello, Evan T Jones thanks for your contributions to Alwyn Ruddock and William Weston (explorer). I guess from your username you are the original author that inspired me to add these pages to wikipedia. I hope it was OK to start them and you like having your work mentioned on wikipedia! Anyway best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC))
Dear Msrasnw - I am indeed Dr Evan Jones (Bristol University). I had been planning on creating a Wikipedia entry, but you got there first. To be honest, this is the first time that I've done this, academics generally being wary of Wikipedia, largely because anyone can write over what you've done. Still, I thought I'd give it a go by experimenting with these pages, since I think they are potentially a useful way of reaching out to people outside of academia. If you can give me advice about any Wiki issues, I'd appreciate it. All the best - Evan Evan T Jones (talk) 19:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
- Dear Dr Jones, feel free to ask me anything. I don't know a lot but I can normally find things out. (I too am an academic , but a low quality one - but one that loves the whole Wikipedia idea. Write an article in a journal 20 people read it. Write a wikipedia entry 20,000 read it, - and the entry might grow and grow.) Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 20:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC))
Dear Msrasnw, I guess I have a number of concerns that you might advise me of: 1) Do you know if it's possible to get the title of an entry changed? I'm particularly interested in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fra_Giovanni_Antonio_Carbonaro I'd really like to get the name changed to 'Carbonariis' since this is how he appears in all the documents I've found, but this seems difficult to do. 2) Do you have any thoughts on dealing with vandalism? I note that I've spent quite some time over the last couple of days updating the 'John Cabot' page. It had some vandalism earlier today, which was then cleared up by some anonymous cleaner. On the other hand, while I appreciate that the nature of Wikipedia is that it's open for all to edit, I suppose I am a bit worried about idiots coming along and deleting reasoned and referenced analysis. This seems to be a particular problem with the 'John Cabot' page, which does, I believe, have a history of vanadalism / overwriting by people with political / nationalistic agendas - or who have just bought into the various myths with which this field abounds. Are there ways of attracting 'cleaners' to the site, who might at least delete vandalism, if not unreasoned and unreferenced analysis? I say this because, while I don't mind writing content for the site based on my expertise in the field, I'm really not prepared to spend all my time removing graffiti. Evan T Jones (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Dear Dr Jones, I think renaming is fairly straitforward. One uses the move tab (next to the history tab at the top of the page) One can see Help:Moving a page for more details. I think you might have a problem with this because you are still a bit new.
- "Note that in order to be able to move pages yourself, you must be logged in and you must have an autoconfirmed account (i.e. you must have had the account for four days and made at least ten article edits with it)."
The vandalism is a different issue. I think one might be best to distinguish between vandalism - which is quick and easy to "undo" or just go to the history and edit the most recent ok version (eg your version) and then save it over the current vandalised version. The history tab is great and you can compare selected revisions easily. A bigger problem is with editors pushing their point of view - here reasoned debate and appeal to authoritative sources on the talk page is normally the best root. And if things get argumentative one can always leave the page for a while and a while come back later. I also should have mentioned that lots of people "watch" their pages and ones they like and so I think vandalism doesn't often last log on important well watched pages. Does that help?
Also here are a few good links that are recommended for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
Dear Dr Jones, I have moved the page - hope is OK. To increase exposure of one's article you can try to get them on the front page, Did You Know is for new articles (or big expansions) or making it a feature article or on this day. Also having pages link to yuor page. You can see what links via (what links here) in the toolbox on the left. Eg []
Hi Evan, thanks for you additions to the History section. I did remove one phrase - "Never ones to let the law stand in the way of making a profit" as this represents a point of view. The History of Bristol article could also do with this material, possibly in a more expanded form. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear Jezhotwells, I'm happy with the removal of that literary flourish. I'll have a look at at the 'History of Bristol' page when I get a chance.
Extent of Cabot's claims?
Prof. Jones - I posted this question on the Cabot page, but it seems to make sense to ask you directly here, as well. There currently appears to be substantial flux in the area of Cabot-related scholarship. Given that flux, what is the current consensus (if any) on the extent of Cabot's claim on behalf of the English Crown? The entire Western Hemisphere? Some smaller territory? Does anyone know the exact wording of what was claimed? Is there an academically-accepted version of any writing containing the extent of the claim? Thanks. NorCalHistory (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bardi family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page America (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Bristol History etc
Hi, I see you have many significant and useful edits to Bristol, History of Bristol, the Cabots, William Weston (explorer), Richard Amerike today. I do not have your expertise in these areas but I am slightly concerned that some of the edits removed cited information from other sources which may not totally coincide with your published work, but can be useful to the reader to help them realise that there are always several views on these topics. In particular this edit removed some material and several sources and replaced them with multiple references to your own work. It may be better to include your own and the work of others enabling others to make judgements about the value of the different contributions and move closer to a neutral pint of view. There are also some reference formatting issues which I will look at.— Rod talk 20:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
It may be that I got a bit irritated by that section: there were so many statements that have no foundation. Indeed, at one point one of my earlier articles was cited in support of a statement for which there is not a shred of evidence. e.g. 'New exploration voyages were launched by Venetian John Cabot, who in 1497 made landfall in some unknown spot of North America, and subsequently by sailors underwritten by Bristol merchants Walter & his son Robert Colley (Cowley) who moved to Dublin in abt. 1500 and King Henry VII until 1508.' I don't know where the latter part of that sentence comes from.
I have similar problems with the statement:The situation only improved when, a few years later, Iberian fishermen (mainly Azoreans and Basques) were hired to lead the Bristol fleet to new banks off Newfoundland.
The problem I have with this 1995 newspaper opinion piece is that no evidence is provided and, on multiple levels, it is misconceived. For instance, the Iceland fisheries were not exhausted: a statement that would surprise any Iceland historian (some of whom I know well) and there is plenty of evidence that I discuss in a peer-reviewed article (available online) that England expanded its fisheries in the early 16C. There is also zero evidence that Iberian fishermen were 'hired' by Bristol to lead them to the New World and, as the customs account data shows, Bristol's economy was in fact booming in the late 15C. History is meant to be 'evidence based' but none is provided here. This is why I did not take the newspaper column seriously. It is not about whether I agree about the interpretation of evidence (historians do disagree about such matters), it's about whether there is evidence to disagree with in the first place. Please understand here that I'm not being parochial: one of the key findings of our research has been to show that Iberia was very important to Bristol's discovery ambitions and commercial development in this period. It is just that, as the 1492/3 map shows (and that IS based on hard quantifiable evidence), it was because Bristol merchants were expanding their trade direct to Spain.
This all said, I am happy to look again at specific statements where a more nuanced approach may be needed - or where it may be appropriate to say something like 'X has said this...but the following evidence suggests it is incorrect.' It's just a matter of balance, in that there isn't room in a Wikipedia page to discuss every misconceived claim someone may have committed to print in the past.
All the best - Evan
- Thanks for the response. As I said I do not have the in depth knowledge of this particular period to argue for or against the specific points you have made but I like the the approach of 'X has said this...but the following evidence suggests it is incorrect.' as the wikipedia standard is verifiability, not truth. I would suggest just doing a personal check that material and citations are being added because they help the reader understand the concept rather than for self promotion. I removed a couple of statements eg "Winner of the Economic History Society's "T.S. Ashton Prize" in 2001;" & "This short book provides an up-to-date account of the voyages, based on the research of the "Cabot Project", aimed at a general audience." which could (easily) be interpreted as "self promotional". Just one other thought - some of the images/maps you have uploaded eg File:1499 voyage.png and File:Bristol trade routes1492.png may be challenged as having unclear copyright status. Although they may be your own work if they have been published in the new book or on the project web site the copyright may be owned by Cabot Project Publications. To avoid any possible problems have a read of Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and see if any of those approaches are suitable. Thanks for improving the wp articles on this era of Bristol history and if I can help with any of the (sometimes arcane) wikipedia ways of working let me know.— Rod talk 08:07, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm very happy to see anything that might be interpreted as self-promotional removed. If I see anything else like that, I'll edit out. I will also have another look at some of the entries to provide more supporting evidence and fuller citations. That said, thinking about the newspaper article that was being cited, I think it is important to recognise that a short and old newspaper article written by someone who has done no research on a topic shouldn't be treated as a serious 'verified source' in the same way that you might treat an anonymously peer-reviewed article in a major academic journal.
Re the copyright issues: the figures I added are my own work and are my copyright. So I am free to make them Wikipedia Commons.
All the best - Evan