Talk:Bastard brothers
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | A fact from Bastard brothers appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 March 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
Biography assessment rating comment
[edit]The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Jreferee 16:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Copy edit but...
[edit]Hi there - this is a pretty good start for a bio. I was going to assist with an edit to this line (John Bastard's own house, and the Red Lion public both in Blandford ...) which doesn't make a lot of sense, and change the word public to Pub on the reasonable chance that The Red Lion was/is a pub - but just in case it isn't I will leave this message for you - because maybe it is a public toilet, or a public library or something? --VS talk 13:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Fixed - thanks it's a public house Giano 15:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Town Hall
[edit]Not sure if the Bastards should get sole credit for the town hall. Cox, Benjamin G., 1993 "The Great Fire of Blandford Forum 1731", p5: 'Sir James Thornhill's design for Blandford town hall is remarkably like the erection finally decided on so far as its outward appearance is concerned.' Jasper33 10:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Bastard Brothers' Study in the Bastard House
[edit]I took these photos at the annual open day today. Not sure which is best to illustrate the article, or about architectural terms to describe what is shown.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ceiling plasterwork -
-
different motifs in the two door panels -
different motifs in the two door panels -
Jasper33 (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
External links modified
[edit]Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Bastard brothers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070819083227/http://people.bath.ac.uk:80/lismd/dorset/churches/charlton-marshall.html to http://people.bath.ac.uk/lismd/dorset/churches/charlton-marshall.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060911115059/http://people.bath.ac.uk:80/lismd/dorset/churches/images/blandford-01.jpg to http://people.bath.ac.uk/lismd/dorset/churches/images/blandford-01.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Evaluation
[edit]I removed a sentence that stated "While the Bastards worked in a provincial style this should not detract from a positive evaluation of their work" because it appears to be uncited and therefore just an editor's construction. However it was restored by @Giano:. Unless this statement is sourced it should not be in the article; all that is needed are evaluations that respected commentators have made, without this introductory preamble. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 22:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- You are quite wrong. Wikipedia is not a site just for complete repetition and verbatim facts. It’s the editors job to interpretate and explain those facts, frequently to a layman, who often won’t grasp the subtleties and hints which are written between the lines of an expert commentator. You will note that in the lead the great architectural historian Colvin is cited as saying:”(they)mostly designed in a vernacular baroque style of considerable merit though of no great sophistication." What you have done is to remove a plain English translation of that quote. People like you, buzzing about removing text which you don’t understand do a great deal of harm to this project. Giano (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Your opinion of my editing contributes nothing to this discussion, so cut out the high-and-mighty "I'm superb and you're a twat" garbage. What you have written in the evaluation section is fundamentally different to the Colvin quote, because it adds your own opinion ("should not detract from a positive evaluation"). Editors should not be looking for what they believe to be "subtleties and hints" (hints?!!!) that are "between the lines" of a source, whether this is paraphrased or not. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Explaining the meaning and elaborating on quotes, and their subtleties and idiosyncrasies, especially in architecture, is exactly what editors should be doing. Otherwise, pages would be just a list of quotes with no particular context. I suppose you are of the view that some of the very distinguished Nikolaus Pevsner's more amusing of sarcastic quotes should be left unexplained too. What would one of our American readers make of "a merry little spire-let" or "possessing unmistakable Teulonesqe hamfistedness", or even "ornate and irresponsible", and that's before we even start on some quotes from the equally distinguished architectural commentator and poet John Betjeman. I suppose, were I to cite "As far as its architecture is concerned, thoroughly horrible. It would take up too much space to describe the discrepant motifs and demonstrate the unfeeling way in which they are assembled." You, doubtless, would feel I should allow to stand unchallenged or even explained why the author may have felt that way. So I'm sorry, PaleCloudedWhite, when it comes to this subject, you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Giano (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- In both your posts in this thread you have inserted your own opinion about me, something that is not relevant to the subject in hand. You are obviously unable to distinguish between discussing an academic topic and adding an irrelevant opinion, so on that basis alone your so-called "plain English translation" (it was plain English before you turned it into your own soapbox) is to be discounted. Any fool can quote bits of Pevsner. It doesn't make you an expert. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 08:03, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Explaining the meaning and elaborating on quotes, and their subtleties and idiosyncrasies, especially in architecture, is exactly what editors should be doing. Otherwise, pages would be just a list of quotes with no particular context. I suppose you are of the view that some of the very distinguished Nikolaus Pevsner's more amusing of sarcastic quotes should be left unexplained too. What would one of our American readers make of "a merry little spire-let" or "possessing unmistakable Teulonesqe hamfistedness", or even "ornate and irresponsible", and that's before we even start on some quotes from the equally distinguished architectural commentator and poet John Betjeman. I suppose, were I to cite "As far as its architecture is concerned, thoroughly horrible. It would take up too much space to describe the discrepant motifs and demonstrate the unfeeling way in which they are assembled." You, doubtless, would feel I should allow to stand unchallenged or even explained why the author may have felt that way. So I'm sorry, PaleCloudedWhite, when it comes to this subject, you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Giano (talk) 17:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Your opinion of my editing contributes nothing to this discussion, so cut out the high-and-mighty "I'm superb and you're a twat" garbage. What you have written in the evaluation section is fundamentally different to the Colvin quote, because it adds your own opinion ("should not detract from a positive evaluation"). Editors should not be looking for what they believe to be "subtleties and hints" (hints?!!!) that are "between the lines" of a source, whether this is paraphrased or not. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- You are quite wrong. Wikipedia is not a site just for complete repetition and verbatim facts. It’s the editors job to interpretate and explain those facts, frequently to a layman, who often won’t grasp the subtleties and hints which are written between the lines of an expert commentator. You will note that in the lead the great architectural historian Colvin is cited as saying:”(they)mostly designed in a vernacular baroque style of considerable merit though of no great sophistication." What you have done is to remove a plain English translation of that quote. People like you, buzzing about removing text which you don’t understand do a great deal of harm to this project. Giano (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Giano's comments seem fine to me, and reflect the wider sources. What exactly is the point you want to make? Are you saying that the Bros weren't somewhat "provincial" in style? This seems adequately established by the Colvin quote in the lead etc. Try also "Blandford Forum parish church is a notable example of Georgian church architecture in the classical style, as interpreted by provincial builder-architects.... the façade of the former Greyhound Inn is a noteworthy example of provincial urban street architecture in the English Baroque style." in the An Inventory of the Historical Monuments in Dorset, Volume 3, Central. Originally published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office, London, 1970. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Johnbod, my next page could be fully referenced, with no extra input from me, and describe a famous London building with a “horrible” facade, “discordant” motifs and “unlucky to have escaped the blitz.” I will make no mention that it is also “a prime example of Curzon Street Baroque” and if I do, I shall make no effort to explain that rather splendid and glorious form of architecture which is found in some of the “better areas” of London almost as much as that Haussmann’s work is in Paris. How easily those of us who understand architecture could slant any page to suit our own point of view, yet we don’t. Wikipedia’s rules that one size fits all are totally ridiculous. Giano (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, the complaint is not whether or not the text states that the brothers were provincial in style, nor that they were, regardless, respectably competent. It is that the phrase "this should not detract from a positive evaluation of their work" pontificates, in Wikipedia's voice, about how readers - and people in general - should react to their work. How does this represent sources? It would be better if it at least stated "has not detracted" rather than "should not detract" - at least that would take some of the editorial instruction out, though if a critic can be found who hasn't reacted favourably to the brothers work, it would probably need to be "in general has not detracted". But that still is problematic because we can only discern if something has detracted from an assessment if we know what that assessment would have been without the detracting factor - i.e. how would a critic have reacted to the brothers work if it was not provincial in style. This is why I believe the whole sentence is not only unnecessary but also unhelpful. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Seems hair-splitting to me, but perhaps you would like to propose an alternative wording here. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- What a pedantic person you are. I note you are saying “we”, is that because you are a crowned head of state? You remind me of a much famed great aunt of mine who always uses “we” to add hauteur to an argument that she knows is lost. Giano (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- The above post contains nothing of relevance to this discussion.
In response to Johnbod's post, I don't agree that I am hair splitting. It should never be Wikipedia's position to preach to readers, which is what the current wording does. As a stab at rewording, something like "Although the brothers' work is in a provincial style, critics have evaluated it positively" maintains something of what exists currently, while removing the instructive element. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2018 (UTC)- [1] Further to your edit: I do care, but not enough to bother with a pedant like you. Giano (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- What you care about is being victorious. Despite your pretenses of being knowledgeable and learned, all your posts here demonstrate that you have never engaged in serious academic debate. "You remind me of a much famed great aunt of mine" - I don't care what I remind you of. This is supposed to be a discussion about an encyclopedic presentation of a subject, not an exchange of banter on amateur night in your local drag bar. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- Rather than as you, so antagonistacally, put it in your edit summary: “No one cares”,it is just a case of preferring not to feed the troll. So do, please, enjoy your “victory.” That you feel my knowledge is a pretence is also fine, my record here speaks for itself. As for drag bars: Oh really! Do grow up. Now, I will continue my policy of starvation, so please don’t make another attempt at wit or pith because it will be wasted. ——
- What you care about is being victorious. Despite your pretenses of being knowledgeable and learned, all your posts here demonstrate that you have never engaged in serious academic debate. "You remind me of a much famed great aunt of mine" - I don't care what I remind you of. This is supposed to be a discussion about an encyclopedic presentation of a subject, not an exchange of banter on amateur night in your local drag bar. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
- [1] Further to your edit: I do care, but not enough to bother with a pedant like you. Giano (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
- The above post contains nothing of relevance to this discussion.
- What a pedantic person you are. I note you are saying “we”, is that because you are a crowned head of state? You remind me of a much famed great aunt of mine who always uses “we” to add hauteur to an argument that she knows is lost. Giano (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Seems hair-splitting to me, but perhaps you would like to propose an alternative wording here. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- No, the complaint is not whether or not the text states that the brothers were provincial in style, nor that they were, regardless, respectably competent. It is that the phrase "this should not detract from a positive evaluation of their work" pontificates, in Wikipedia's voice, about how readers - and people in general - should react to their work. How does this represent sources? It would be better if it at least stated "has not detracted" rather than "should not detract" - at least that would take some of the editorial instruction out, though if a critic can be found who hasn't reacted favourably to the brothers work, it would probably need to be "in general has not detracted". But that still is problematic because we can only discern if something has detracted from an assessment if we know what that assessment would have been without the detracting factor - i.e. how would a critic have reacted to the brothers work if it was not provincial in style. This is why I believe the whole sentence is not only unnecessary but also unhelpful. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Johnbod, my next page could be fully referenced, with no extra input from me, and describe a famous London building with a “horrible” facade, “discordant” motifs and “unlucky to have escaped the blitz.” I will make no mention that it is also “a prime example of Curzon Street Baroque” and if I do, I shall make no effort to explain that rather splendid and glorious form of architecture which is found in some of the “better areas” of London almost as much as that Haussmann’s work is in Paris. How easily those of us who understand architecture could slant any page to suit our own point of view, yet we don’t. Wikipedia’s rules that one size fits all are totally ridiculous. Giano (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)