Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2010 October 8

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 8

Infante

When was the first time in which the title Infante was officially used in Portugal, Castile, Leon, or Aragon? The article Infante doesn't say. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It may be tough to nail down, since the title grew organicly out of the language (Infante essentially means "child" or "infant"), rather than out of actual noble titles like Prince of Wales or Dauphin. The French equivalent of the title is Prince du Sang, which is not a title per se, but a class of nobility which can claim royal bloodlines, hence "Prince of the Blood". I would speculate that the original title was merely descriptive, something like "Children of The King", which was shortened to "Children" or "Infante" and formalized. Finding the exact date that happened would be very tricky because it would mean tracking down old documents and analyzing word usage over time to see when the term started to be applied. --Jayron32 01:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

property question

This might be a borderline legal question, but its purely hypothetical. Suppose a person was under investigation by the FBI and the FBI placed hidden microphones around his house. Also suppose that he found the devices. Would there be anything legally to stop him from selling the hardware on ebay? Googlemeister (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I would imagine that the FBI would still consider it their (or tax payers) property as the haven't abandoned it. It is there legally if they sought a judicial warrant. They have just seized John Lennon's fingerprints --Aspro (talk) 16:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(Your puzzling typo corrected --Anon, 22:40 UTC, October 8, 2010.)

By the time they're demanding it back, you probably ought to give it to them. --Sean 17:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The question is so legal that it may be illegal to answer it here. If the FBI caused some damage placing their microphones, such as drilling holes or stapling wires, a lawyer might turn that into a compensation claim. If the microphones are not labelled "Property of FBI" then the finder has Plausible deniability that they knew who had planted them. Then of course he/she can't sell them as "FBI microphones" on e-Bay. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Only Illya Kuryakin used to hid them like that, which sounds as if they wanted it found, maybe to see his reaction. --Aspro (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Our article Lost, mislaid, and abandoned property notes that in most common law jurisdictions like the US and Britain, the law says that the finder of an ostensibly mislaid or abandoned device is supposed to turn it into the authorities; the finder of such property doesn't get any title to the property if the owner can be located. Thus the finder can't turn around and sell them on eBay whether there is plausible deniability of the actual owner or not. The finder doesn't own the device. Conversion is what the finder would be sued for. A finder who sells lost property may also have committed a crime: Recently an Apple employee left a prototype iPhone 4 in a bar and a guy sold it to Gizmodo for US$5,000 so they could leak the info to the world. This article discusses how in California, the guy might be chargable with theft if he knew who the owner was likely to be. I realize the property was not actually lost by the FBI, but this is the closest information I could find. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think that the "turn it in" approach to mislaid and lost property is largely a statutory creation... at common law it was more open (but I might be very wrong about that). Abandon property is almost by definition for the taking (absent some other prohibition). The distinction between mislaid and lost property is more a question about whether you have to turn it in to if at all. As for the original question... I have no idea. I pity the attorney that has that case. Shadowjams (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Museums

What great and important artifacts have been lost due to poor handling by Museums, fire, or other events?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It happens all the time. Rare books in German library fire--Aspro (talk) 17:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Lots of manuscripts were lost when the Cotton library caught fire (the only manuscript of Beowulf was singed but not destroyed). The Library of Alexandria was of course destroyed numerous times. Many ancient works of art and literature were looted or destroyed in the Siege of Constantinople in 1204, including the Imperial Library of Constantinople. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The last stuffed dodo was discarded in a fire by the museum curator, who thought it was too moth-eaten to be worth saving. This link mentions that; I first heard about it in the The Book of General Ignorance. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget the P. T. Barnum museum fire in 1865. Who knows what was really lost in that catastrophe. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 18:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You might also be interested in our article on Nazi plunder. Dismas|^(talk) 18:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Amber Room. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 18:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Elgin marbles have suffered pretty badly in several botched cleaning attempts.--Rallette (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Buddhas of Bamyan. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 19:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and let's not forget Robert Capa's D-Day photos that were ruined in the lab.--Rallette (talk) 19:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

"French youth clean a cave and damage prehistoric art" [1] is a notable case from 1992. Authorities let "Eclaireurs de France " go into caves with 15000 year old paintings of bison in the grotto of Mayrieres and scrub the walls with steel brushes, obliterating some of the paintings. Olmec drawings from 1000 to 500 BC were similarly destroyed by foolish cleaning of walls in Mexico. It is common for overzealous conservators of paintings to "clean" them to make the colors brighter, thereby removing shading and details which were part of the original artist's intention. Afterwards everyone enthuses about how "bright and vivid" the images are now, supposing that and shadows were due to smoke and dirt. One interesting comparison showed a pair of paintings which were original a set. One had been kept in the US and had lots of "cleaning". In the US one, metal spear tips were just triangles on one color. In the European one, they looked more real and had detail. Critics complained about overrestoration of the Sistine Chapel frescos originally painted by Michelangelo, in which his own final layers of tone may have been removed to make the colors "bright". "Restorers" and "conservators" may sometimes have a vandalistic desire to have the world see their handiwork in place of that of the original artist, and claim a mystical ability to tell who applied which layer of paint. Overrestoration is a permanent cultural loss. In New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art City art museum, in 2002 an important 15th century marble statue of Adam by Tullio Lombardo was destroyed by the collapse of a plywood base. The statue fell to the floor and shattered while the museum was closed. [2] I was grateful it did not fall over while I was standing next to it a week earlier, since I'm sure the Museum would have loved to have a scapegoat! At the same museum, a terra-cotta relief depicting Saint Michael, made in 1475 by Andrea della Robbia, fell off the wall and smashed in 2008. The statue smashed in 2002 has not been restored for viewing yet. Careless display of art can provide years of lucrative work for a restorer with a gluepot and some marble dust. Most of the early motion pictures were lost because they were on celluloid film stock which deteriorated. They needed to be copied onto modern film stock or digitally scanned. More recent color films have often deteriorated badly due to poor storage conditions. Books printed since the 1850's on acid paper crumble to nothing on library shelves unless temperature and humidity are controlled. Scanning such as by Google Books or microfilming can at least preserve the text and images. The text of books was preserved from decay in ancient times by copying. A fine 1883 work on "Preservation of the classic texts" notes how efficiently slaves could make hundreds of copies of a manuscript in ancient times, allowing the Library of Alexandria collection to be restored after its first two destructions, until finally in 640 the last collection was burned to heat bathwater on orders of the Caliph Omar, because it might contradict Moslem doctrine. During the dark ages and medieval times, monks neglected copying the ancient texts in favor of Christian writing, and the decay process went on, although ancient Greek and Roman texts existed in the collections. Many were lost through this benign neglect, besides ancient texts which were deliberately destroyed because they were detrimental to the promulgation of Christian doctrine. Lack of continued copying led to attrition of ancient works. Many manuscripts were destroyed after printing came along, since velum was useful in bookbinding. Edison (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, well, some of that is not true; this idea that people just sat on their thumbs in the Middle Ages and didn't know anything about anything is seriously aggravating. The only reason any ancient texts survived is because they were copied and re-copied in the Middle Ages. Sometimes manuscripts were destroyed due to ignorance or accident, but which ones were destroyed on purpose because they were not Christian? (Actually, the only example I can think of is the Library of Alexandria, which had already been destroyed, by Christians, before the Arabs got there.) Adam Bishop (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Read the article from 1883. Yes, some scholars had access to ancient manuscripts. But they were slighted in copying efforts, in contrast to the more evenhanded program at the Library of Alexandria and in general in the classical world. He said that the monks did not do enough copying of classical manuscripts to compensate for mold and mildew and fungus, along with mischance destroying them. Instead they mostly copied Christian documents. Deliberate destruction was not the only means of loss. Scholars in the 900's or 1300's had access to ancient manuscripts we can only dream of, such as the details of the Library at Alexandria hinted at matter-of-factly in the Plautine Scholium[3], [4] which has details of who served as librarian at Alexandria, and how many volumes it contained at various times, from manuscripts subsequently lost.. There was no official program to ensure that no ancient plays, or works of mathematics, of geometry, or philosophy etc were preserved for later generations. Added to this was reckless use of ancient velums in bookbinding, when Gutenberg introduced mass publication of books.

If this sort of thing interests you, I recommend the book "The Venus Fixers" by Ilaria Dagnini Brey, the story of the Allied special troops charged with protecting the cultural treasures of Italy in World War II. Priceless manuscripts used to wrap fish, vindictive Germans burning the royal archives of Naples, paintings knee-deep in mould, etc. etc. But much was saved, as we know, and these people did amazing work.--Rallette (talk) 19:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The National Museum of Iraq was looted during the 2003 invasion. Some stuff's been recovered, but lots of other stuff hasn't. The Shroud of Turin was damaged by fire in 1532, though not destroyed, obviously. The Parthenon was blown up and looted in 1687 by some Venetians. The Dead Sea Scrolls were subjected to some (what are now recognized as) pretty sickening "conservation efforts", though again, not destroyed (in general). Buddy431 (talk) 22:36, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

John Warburton's cook. And I have been told that one of the Chadwicks lost some manuscripts from the Bodleian by leaving them in a bag where the dustman apparently asusmed they were rubbish and carted them away; but I haven't found any corroboration of this. --ColinFine (talk) 23:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

As long as we're talking about library destructions, one that pissed off a great many people in the United States was that after the Germans destroyed the University of Louvain library in Belgium in WW1, it was re-built at great splendor and expense, largely funded by American donations -- whereupon the Germans turned right back around and destroyed it again as soon as the Western front "phoney war" ended in 1940! This really did not gain any goodwill for Germany in the U.S... AnonMoos (talk) 00:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The original signed copy of the US Declaration of Independence hung on a wall in the Patent Office from 1841 to 1877, exposed to light. It was treated with chemicals to etch a copy onto a copper plate in 1823 [5], [6] to make reproductions, before it eventually made it into an inert atmosphere behind UV filtering glass in the National Archives. [7]. Edison (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you count these as "other events" (I don't think one can really blame the museums here), but the articles on vandalism of art in general, and Hans-Joachim Bohlmann in particular might interest you as well. ---Sluzzelin talk 03:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The original Gettysburg Cyclorama is in a pretty sad state of disrepair; it was forgotten about for 32 years until someone found it squirreled away in a warehouse. Restoration work is underway, but it has not been on public display since about 1933. Four versions of the work were painted by the artist; the second version is the one you can see at Gettysburg National Military Park, the other two disappeared and no one knows about them. At one time in the late 1800's Cyclorama paintings were all the rage, however the Gettysburg Cyclorama is among the last extant original Cycloramas left. --Jayron32 05:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

And there are accidents. Ming vases on open display at the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge were smashed when a visitor fell down the stairs. "My precious vase hell" tells the story of the clumsy visitor who says he was arrested months later: "Twenty-five police officers came to my house at 7am, some wearing stab-proof vests, others ready to kick the door in." The museum tells the story of the conservation and restoration, including time-lapse photos, here. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Those wonderful bringers of good tidings the early Christians destroyed or redacted every book they could get their hands on, if the book contained anything contrary to Christian dogma. Say goodbye to the vast majority of works surviving from Greece and Rome. Thanks, Jesus! 63.17.77.127 (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that happens to be complete and utter nonsense. Large quantities of pagan-written and mythology-referring poetry and philosophy were preserved by Christians, as well as other materials with slighting references to Christians, including the reference to the disturbances by "Chrestus" among the Jews of Rome in the reign of Claudius in the histories of Tacitus, the letter of Pliny the Younger about how to deal with Christians in Bithynia, the Misopogon, etc. Without the efforts of medieval Christian monks, there would be a whole lot less surviving ancient Greek and Latin literature than there is now... AnonMoos (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Crown Court

In an English Crown Court, is the public allowed access to all cases tried there? Thankyou for any help. 217.44.188.78 (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No. Crown courts have a public gallery, and under normal circumstances the public may observe trials (provided there is room for them to do so). But cases may be tried in camera if a judge deems it appropriate - where national security is said to be involved, for example, the authorities may apply for such a trial. Those involved with the prosecution or defence may also apply to the judge for all or part of a case to be heard in private in certain circumstances, such as to protect the privacy of a child giving evidence. Judges can also order that reporting of a trial in the media be restricted. See Allan Chappelow for an example of a Crown Court trial at the Old Bailey that was held in private to a large extent, as a consequence of government applications to the judge. Karenjc 22:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe that technically there are always restrictions on reporting trials, but these are normally lifted by the judge unless there are special circumstances. We sometimes hear in media reports of trials that "reporting restrictions were not lifted". See here for some information on all this. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

whatever happened to the author of the imponderables books

I see his nemesis Cecil Adams is still going strong, so what's David Feldman been up to? 85.181.49.168 (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Googling "list of david feldman books" yielded this link which shows at least 2 more Imponderables books scheduled for release in March 2011. (I doubt that the same David Feldman is the author of all the books on that list...) Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

He runs imponderables.com. --Sean 14:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Interesting phenomenon

More then 7 years ago primer minister of my country was killed. Since then, many streets were names after him and even those who didnt love him at the time agree that he was the greatest politician that our country ever had.

But recently I noticed an unexplainable phenomenom: everyone: rich and and poor, young and old, nationalists and pro-EU, educated or not, everyone remember where they were when they heard the news of the assasination. It is very peculiar, because for example, many of people that I talked to about this dont remember where they were when they found out they were going to become parents, or where they were when we won the World Cup in basketball or where they were 7 days ago. All these things should be easier to remember, yet everyone seems to remember when they were when prime minister was shot and where they were when they first heard the news of it.

Is there any explanation for this, or is this unique for my country? --92.244.147.41 (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(Note: IP geolocates to Serbia --Saalstin (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting and if it's ok I'd like to expand it to major international events in general. For example most people know where they were when they first heard about 11/09/01 and older people remember the same about JFK. 217.44.188.78 (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

(EC) OR here, but the answer to the last part of your last question is "no" — recent "It seems like everyone remembers where they were when they heard" events in the US have included 9/11, the assassination of JFK, the Reagan assassination attempt, the Space Shuttle Challenger accident, and the Space Shuttle Columbia accident. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A similar UK example would be the death of Diana, Princess of Wales. Karenjc 22:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

All of the above. I also remember where I was when I was told Pope Pius XII died, in October 1958, when I was not yet 8 years old. I can also remember a few earlier notable events, like the launching of Sputnik in October 1957, and the arrival of television to Australia in September 1956. I remember my parents telling me of their shock when they heard Australia was at war with Germany, in September 1939. I'm sure this phenomenon has been around forever, and I'm really surprised, come to think of it, that it hasn't been given a name and we don't have an article on it. Please correct me if I'm wrong. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 23:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

No offense intended at all but if you can remember all that, then you're older than I thought you were. Dismas|^(talk) 03:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There you go then. As they say, you can grow old but you never have to grow up.  :) Not that I'm remotely "old", as far as I'm concerned. I'm still in my 50s ... for a few more weeks. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 03:42, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have heard this referred to in the US as "the JFK effect", but the only source I can find just mentions it in passing: This is often called the "JFK effect," illustrated by the proverbial question: "where were you when you heard that John F. Kennedy was shot?" -- 111.84.162.240 (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I certainly remember where I was when I found out I would be a parent. I think the earliest world event I remember is the Challenger explosion. I don't remember where I was when the prime minister of Serbia was killed... Adam Bishop (talk) 00:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This says it's been reported at least far as back as the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, and the phenomenon is called flashbulb memory, about which we do indeed have what seems to be quite a comprehensive article. Good ol' Wikipedia, I know we had to have this covered. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

A young person with a wonderful sense of humor once said "I'll never forget where I was when I heard that President Kennedy was assassinated. I was in American History class, hearing about something that happened decades earlier. Coincidentally, that was also where I heard that the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor." Edison (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Although I was a child at the time, I personally remember exactly where I was when JFK was first reported to have been shot (his death as you all know was officially announced later), and I vividly remember seeing Lee Harvey Oswald gunned down by Ruby on tv. I also perfectly recall when I first heard that Princess Diana and John Lennon were both killed. I also remember the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy as well as the attempted one of Ronald Reagan. Events like these are forever imprinted upon one's brain which is akin to a sponge.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I recall that when I heard the announcement that President Reagan had been shot, my first thought was of all the times I'd been told by people that they still remember what they were doing when JFK had been shot. I've wondered ever since if my memory of the event would have been as strong had I not been prepped by all those remarks. -- 124.157.234.91 (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

This is really just a ploy to out a bunch of wiki editors' ages.... Comet lists the events that I'd first think of for this phenomena in the U.S. I'd be interested to know how universal some of these dates are. I'd imagine that there's a strong correlation with video access. I bet more people remember the Challenger disaster than remember where they were when they heard about December 7th because the former had a singular, dramatic image (like the Kennedy assassination, and 9-11). Similarly, I remember where I was when I heard about the fall of the Berlin Wall (now I've dated myself) but I don't have any image in my head, largely because it was an event that happened over a series of days and weeks, rather than in an instant.

Is anyone aware of any academic works on this point? Shadowjams (talk) 07:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Why, yes. Our article Flashbulb memory, to which I alluded earlier, has 36 references to more detailed reading material. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

An anecdote in the opposite direction: when the fall of the Berlin wall was being shown on the news, I tried to explain to my daughter, then aged 8, that this was a very significant event that she should remember having seen. However she now says she has no memory of this occasion. In contrast I vividly remember hearing of the assassination of JFK, which happened when I was 10. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

My earliest such memory is that of watching a news broadcast about Margaret Thatcher becoming prime minister, and my mother telling me it was a very significant event "and you're here to see it". I was just under four and a half years old at the time. Marnanel (talk) 15:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I had barely started school when the Berlin Wall fell, but I remember it: I saw it on Newsround, and people were pulling bricks out to make a hole which they climbed through. It was a dramatic image, and the presenter explained that people had been separated from their families, but now could see each other. I didn't actually know what I was seeing, except for families making a hole in a wall so they could see each other after years apart, but I was able to connect this moment and image to the event later. It occurs to me that some of the songs we sung in school over the next few weeks were connected to this, and we were probably given some explanation, but what I really remember is that image of families tearing a hole in the wall. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, I think the article on "flashbulb memory" misses the point: I think what's special is not that you remember "where you were when Kennedy was assassinated" — I think you remember "where you were when Kennedy was assassinated". I think that the location of an event is a very fundamental part of memory, and those who have practiced mnemonics often describe visualizing themselves storing memories in a house, garden, etc. so that each memory is linked to a place to make it clearer. But I have no skill in that regard.

But to give practical examples, I remember where I was when I watched an annular lunar eclipse, and who was with me, and the crude device I used to project it. I remember where I stood the first time I used a good digital camera to take a color image at night. I remember where I was the first time I watched a bald eagle fly overhead, and the second too. It's nothing to do with strong emotion; it's just the combination of what I'd call an "antigenic" memory, one that is very distinctive, with a simple request for the place at which it happened. But that's just my personal opinion, and there's that whole article to say something else. Wnt (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Flagged 1

I read that the French write their 1s with a "flag" i.e. a beginning stroke (like the serif at the top of the typed "1" (such as this one), but longer). I was wondering: How long is this "flag", how common is it to do this? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.78.167 (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It can be quite large, reaching down to the "baseline" - see for example the price signs on the photo here. To avoid confusion, the number 7 is often written with a prominent horizontal bar through the downstroke. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And it's not just the French. Many people throughout Europe write their 1s this way. Dismas|^(talk) 22:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

But, to avoid confusion, we're only talking about handwritten numerals. In print a 1 normally looks the same in all these languages. --Anonymous, 22:44 UTC, October 8, 2010.

I've always been annoyed by fonts in which "I", "l" and "1" look alike because I was taught (here in the UK) to write them all differently, including a small serif and a base-line on the figure 1, though I don't bother with these when I am writing numbers quickly and no confusion is possible. The extreme serif on the French "1" can certainly be confused with a non-French "7" for those unfamiliar with it. Dbfirs 12:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I remember a very confusing lecturer at university who wrote what we took to be a strange triangle-like symbol in his workings, and it would vanish sometimes for no reason we could see. After a few weeks, someone plucked up the courage to ask him what this unexplained, undefined symbol was. "This? But this is a 1!" And we were enlightened. 109.155.37.180 (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I spend some time in the US and the UK, and weirdly enough, I quickly got used to writing the 1 as a simple downstroke, but still put the bar on the 7. The extra upstroke in the 1 is usually not very high, at least in continental Western Europe - typically less than half height, often even less than one third of the full height of the glyph.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Two men named David J. Pelzer

09/12/2010 04:52 - Peggi Pelzer wrote:

> Are you aware that there are two men named David J. Pelzer? The author, David JAMES Pelzer, is very well known, but his notoriety has had an unhappy effect on David JUDE Pelzer, who is a very talented artist and sculptor. David Jude Pelzer is my son - he was born on June 15, 1958, in St. Paul, MN USA. He has lived in Ireland with his wife and children for the past several years. Before they moved, they frequently received telephone calls meant for the author of A Boy Called It and had a difficult time convincing people they had reached the wrong person. > > A small sample of his work can be found on Facebook - David Pelzer Artworks. Please tell me what to do so that David JUDE Pelzer can be listed on your site. I don't know how to explain what a hindrance the publicity for the author has been to our son, and how important it is to make the public aware that there are two men with that name. I have no desire to "diss" the author, I just want to help my son. Please, can you tell me what to do? > > 174.20.248.195 (talk) 22:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)> I hope this is an acceptable form - I'm not quite sure what to do with this info.

Wikipedia has a bunch of rules for whether or not a person is "notable" enough for an article. Otherwise there would be 20 billion Wikipedia articles about individual people. See WP:N for this policy, and especially Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Creative professionals. If he doesn't qualify, then, sorry, Wikipedia isn't the forum to try and create a distinction between the two in the mind of the public. If you think he is sufficiently notable after reading the above, you can ask at the Wikipedia:Notability/Noticeboard. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've done a bit of Googling, and I can't find any coverage of David J(ude) Pelzer that would support a request for an article about him. If you could find such coverage and provide links to it, you could ask for the article to be created at WP:AFC. Otherwise this is indeed not the place to make a public profile for your son that is distinct from that of the author. If he already has a website and a Facebook page, he's doing what he can to build a distinctive internet identity. Could he perhaps take to calling himself "David Jude Pelzer" professionally, to underline the distinction? Self-published web pages will not establish his notability in Wikipedia terms - we need articles, features and news in independent, reliable sources - but it may help him lay claim to his own identity out there. Karenjc 23:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the David J. Pelzer article is in some way an advertisment rather than an encyclopedia article about a notable author. If it turns out your son is notable and that can be shown in multiple reliable sources, then someone will come by and create an article using a slight variation of the title to distinguish him from the author. Astronaut (talk) 08:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Sharing a name with someone famous can sometimes be an advantage as well as a disadvantage (at least people can remember your name). There are a few other people called David J Pelzer (one is a managing director), but at present only the author is notable by Wikipedia rules. When others, including your son, become famous, Wikipedia will create a disambiguation page to distinguish between the author and other David J Pelzers. We can't really give useful advice on becoming famous, but you should let us know when your son has had several different newspaper or periodical articles written about him, and has had his work in an exhibition or two. Meanwhile, why not suggest that he sets up his own website (not just facebook) to feature his work. If some newspaper articles link to this, then he will be easier to find in Google searches. Dbfirs 11:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

One option you might consider to help draw the distinction is that he could start an account at User:David Jude Pelzer, and globalize it to include sites including Wikimedia Commons. If he is willing to release photographs from his "Metal Works by David Pelzer" folio on Facebook [8] for general use, then he could post them to Wikimedia Commons — though I should say that while photos of art are welcome, photos demonstrating how he makes the art would be truly appreciated! With the file names of his artworks (which could include the name of the artist) and his Wikipedia and Commons pages he could help promote an online identity distinct from the unwanted author. (But do read WP:COI carefully; there's only so much self-promotion you can do before the response here gets ugly) Wnt (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)