User:Hoary/Archive23

Brazil

Made a new section. The other was a little bit confuse to follow. You wrote in the history section that:

His economic and industrial policy (Vague)

There isn't much to tell in here, except for the fact Brazil's economy grew a lot in his term along with the industrial sector.

but suffered large opposition (Vague)

Mainly for his connection with communists.

was the most severe (Vague)

Against the dictatorship opposionists, most of them were communists who were fighting to create their own dictatorship. In 21 years of military rule, around 350 Brazilians were killed. Most in gunshot exchange with the Military or the Police. Just to compare, in Argentina more than 30,000 were killed (mostly by torture or other cruel ways), Chile 5,000, Cuba, 150,000, etc...

o be "slow, gradual and safe." (Vague)

Taken from President Geisel own words. I hope that helped. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if writing "it was more severe than before or later" because other periods of Brazilian history could be easily called more brutal. For example, is well known that more than 20,000 Brazilians died in the begining of the Republic fighting for the monarchy's restoration. When I wrote "severe" I meant that the repression against dictatorship's opponents was severe but not nearly as in other Latin American countries. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry I misunderstood. But now I'm tired. Could you please fix it? Thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

You've added an "invisible" sentence in the language section arguing that the govrnment website shouldn't be taken in account for. Well, I read the source (it's in English, so you could check by yourself) and nowehere in there says anything. That is, there is no meton that Portuguese is important for Brazilian identity to make Brazilians feel different from their Spanish-American neighoboors. Although language is indeed, in any people, important for cultural and national pride, the source says nothing about it. --Lecen (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well done. I didn't notice this because I didn't bother to look at the source. So we have a second example of not just inadequate but fictional "sourcing". The problem is that Brazil, like many articles, has been edited by people who can't read, don't want to read, can't think, or don't want to think. It's hardly surprising, given that (at least in my part of the world) a large percentage of university students now require entire courses to learn what I picked up in my first month at university: how to find and cite credible sources for one's assertions. Of course this is hugely more important than the question of whether to put bibliographical details in a note or a bibliography, or whether to write En attendant Godot or En Attendant Godot. -- Hoary (talk) 01:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I agree 100% with you. I don't know if you remember, but before I started to revamp the article, it looked like a tourism publicity article. Although I am my self a Brazilian I was bothered to see an article that looked like many thinks, but fore sure not something taken from an encyclopedia. For what I've noticed so far, we should do first check the text itself. Once we all agree that the text it's fine and needs no more change, we should look into the sources. After all sources are fixed and sentences in the text that are unreal corrected, we should look into those "style" issues (like whether should we use capitalized words or not, etc...). What do you think? --Lecen (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with the spirit of what you're saying but the idea of implementing it worries me. My own view is that if a style question (even a trivial one) pops up all over the place, it's better to agree earlier rather than later on what to do: then the edits can gradually move in that direction, thereby reducing the total amount of work that's needed. Anyway, it's trivial. ¶ In this recent edit (which may have annulled one or two edits by others, sorry), look for the paragraph starting According to the last [[IBGE|National Research by Household Sample]] (PNAD), 49.4% of the population: see within this paragraph how one link to a filename ending "asp" was described as "format=PDF". Why would any alert, intelligent person have perpetrated that -- ignorance or stupidity? Anyway, I wouldn't be at all surprised if again this source doesn't say what it's cited to say. -- Hoary (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

More likely, someone changed the source and forgot to suppress the "pdf" part.

I did take a look at it. It is a newspaper article about the 2007 PNAD. Here is what it says about the "racial" composition of Brazil:

Com isso, a população residente do país estava composta por 49,4% de brancos, 7,4% de pretos, 42,3% de pardos e 0,8% de outras em 2007.

Which would translate as something like, with that, the resident population of the country was composed by 49.4% of Whites, 6.4% of Blacks, 42.3% of "pardos" and 0.8% of others in 2007.

The separate figures for Yellows and Amerindians, therefore, were found elsewhere. Also that source doesn't say a word about self-declaration.

Anyway, I changed both text and source, as the figures were outdated. Included the figures of the 2008 PNAD (and gave the year, 2008, in the text, rather than referring to the "last" PNAD, in the possibly unrealistic hope that the world won't end before the results of the 2009 PNAD results are released) and linked directly to an IBGE table, rather than to a newspaper article about the survey (I would suggest make this a specific rule on subjects of Brazilian demography - unless impossible, to always refer to IBGE figures as found in their webpage, instead of third part reports on such figures). Ninguém (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Here [1] is, for the records, the introduction of the asp file within the reference that describes it as PDF. Ninguém (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he probably just forgot to delete the field about PDF. Come to think of it, I might have done something similar in the past. I hate these citation templates myself: I appreciate the idea behind them, but no advantage seems to have been taken of them; and they're bulky and unwieldy. But then again they're nowhere near as bulky as the grotesquely long Brazilian URLs that you dig up. Not that the URLs are in any way your fault, of course. -- Hoary (talk) 23:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, they are huge, and awkward. Thankfully you told me how to cite them without the whole address appearing... On the other hand, they are also useful, and link to real data from a statistics agency.

Talking about statistics agencies, I was taking a look at the Canada article, which seems to enjoy a good reputation, and found this odd sentence:

The largest ethnic group is English (21%), followed by French (15.8%), Scottish (15.2%), Irish (13.9%), German (10.2%), Italian (5%), Chinese (3.9%), Ukrainian (3.6%), and First Nations (3.5%). Approximately one third of respondents identified their ethnicity as "Canadian".

It is strange that one third (that my Math teachers have assured to me several times is 33.333...%) of the respondents gave "Canadian" as their ethnicity, but the "largest ethnic group" is "English", at 21%. Perhaps "Canadian" is not an "actual ethnic group"? Being more curious than it's good for my own mental health, I accessed the given reference - a link to "Statistics Canada". It is broken, so I googled "Statistics Canada" and found the page ([2]) that gives the figures that seem to have based the statistics above. Surprise surprise, Statistics Canada does not say that 21% of Canadians are ethnic English, but rather that 21% of Canadians (or an absolute figure that represents 21% of the total Canadian population) report an English "ethnic origin". Which seems a lot more reasonable to my ears.

What's going on? Do everybody envy the fate of former Yugoslavia and are eager to fancy their own home countries as Balkanic or Balkanisable candidates for some ethno-tribal inferno? Very, very weird...

(note, I am not proposing any action regarding Canada. My own knowledge about that country is too small to edit anything about it. I am merely expressing my astonishment about the way things are quoted in some articles.) Ninguém (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't know. I do notice that "ethnic identity" remains a burgeoning field within sociology. Some of it looks very valuable, some of it looks benign but worthless; I wouldn't be surprised if a small amount is, or is twisted to be, somehow destructive. With academics as well as pressure groups urging the collection of "data" on such matters, I suppose that government organs feel they must comply. (Also, there may be genuine concern to find out the facts in order to highlight segregation and systemic injustice -- as in the US, where, as Jonathan Kozol has pointed out, the education system has effectively been resegregated.) Then people get these questionnaires and fill them out, but there's no way in which the person who fills them out can show whether this is (a) an important part of her identity, or (z) something of virtually no interest to her. So anyway the "data" are published, and then a mixture of sleepy, stupid, ideologically fanatic, and even sane and conscientious Wikipedia editors get their hands on the data, and silliness and chaos ensue, surprise surprise. ¶ What's undergraduate work like in Brazil? Here in my part of the world, even the average (otherwise intelligent, non-ideologue) undergraduate seems to require personal and intensive coaching before she's able to distinguish between plausible and crap sources, to read the former intelligently, and to cite them intelligently. (Do ipods and cellphones damage the critical parts of the brain?) -- Hoary (talk) 05:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed that Brazilian publishing includes Portuguese translations of some excellent books in English. If you haven't already read this, please do! -- Hoary (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I also don't know exactly what is going on, or why, regarding such kind of "information". But how it happens seems to be:

1. Canadian Census asks people about their "ethnic origins";
2. 6,000,000 Canadians answer that they have English "ethnic origins";
3. this is reported as "English is an ethnic group of 6 million people in Canada";
4. which is then reworded as "there are 6 million Englishmen in Canada";
5. and further took to the conclusion that "the English population of Canada is the nth largest English population out of England";
6. and also, "the English are the largest ethnic group in Canada";
7. ........
8. profit.

Mutatis mutandi, "Canada" can be replaced by "Argentina", "Brazil", "the United States", etc, and "English" by "Italian", "French", "German", "Japanese", "Arab", etc. Ninguém (talk) 15:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Chilean people

Please unprotect the article and please look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#.7B.7Bvandal.7C190.209.46.146.7D.7D

The user is just vandalizing the article. --MW talk contribs 04:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Please look at Talk:Chilean people. --MW talk contribs 04:54, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've looked. And I've responded in both places. There's no reason to discuss this further here. -- Hoary (talk) 05:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Hoary would you mind to permanently watch this article and Demographics of Chile since both articles are under constant anonimous attacks? Certain aspects of the population of Chiole seems to disturb some anomimous users, who when reverted either return or a new user with the same view pops up. We do really need an admin looking at this because I dont want or have the time to ask for protection each week. Please consider putting a block for unregistered users in these articles when nessesary, while this time MrWiki was apparently wrong, it is the anonimous vandals and racial agenda-users those that permanently attack this article. If you look in the talk page, established the users involved there do have differences but there is a constrictive discussion. Dentren | ^Talk 23:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Nelson

[3]...

No comments needed, I think. Ninguém (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Ta for pointing out the dud link. Sorry if my site distracted you from anything important. ;) Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

White Brazilian

Do you have an opinion as to how the discussion's been going at Talk:White Brazilian? Off2riorob has asked me what should be done with the article protection. I noticed your proposal of 17 December at Talk:White Brazilian#a draft introduction. Do you think there is a chance that the editors on the talk page could be polled or RfCed to determine if they support your draft? Then it might be placed in the article via an {{editprotected}} request. I don't mean to single out just your proposal for attention; I would welcome any other proposals that are carefully worked on. It is up to the editors working on Talk to make the decision. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah . . . thank you for asking. Please give me a little time to think about it. -- Hoary (talk) 04:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Done! And sorry about the delay. -- Hoary (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hiroh's name

You mean that it's not a long o but a double o, like in Susanoo-no-Mikoto. So it could be written "Hiro-o" ... but it's not really convinient.--Gdore (talk) 04:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. However, "Hiroo" seems convenient to me, and it's what both en:WP and fr:WP call the area within Shibuya: Hiroo, Shibuya, Tokyo (and Hiroo), fr:Hiroo. -- Hoary (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, the official Hepburn transcription should be "oo", but you know, for a non-native-japanes speaker, it's hard to know if its a long or double "o", like Ōsaka. In this name, I tought that it would be a long "o", because in english, they add a "h" to show that it's a long "o" (well, I guess, because there is Noh taht is Nō in FR, but this use of the final h is not in Hepburn, or not as I know)

I mostly work on FR, so I will add a note after the name to say that it's a double o. Thanks.--Gdore (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, there's a morphological break within what you write as "ō", and therefore there must be a syllabic break there too. (This is certainly how "Hiro-o", the part of Tokyo, is pronounced: not only three moras but also three syllables.) Let's assume for now that I'm right. So why the spelling "Hiroh"? My uninformed guess is that the man chose not to write "Hiro-o" because it's fiddly, and not to write "Hiroo" because English speakers would pronounce the last part as in "kangaroo". (Anyway, no monoglot English [or, I think, monoglot French] person would say /hi.ro.o/ [that's broad IPA of course] fluently or distinguish it from /hi.roː/.) And not to write "Hiro" as it seemed short or only half of his name. Incidentally, at least one of his books has a roman-letter alternative ("Hiroo", maybe?) to "Hiroh", but I don't remember which book it is and I'm a bit too sleepy to go looking. ¶ Modèle:Japonais is rather a pain to use, and the proliferation of links to the help page is a bit silly. Of course I'll be polite about it there, because I'm a mere guest editor; but you might want to push for construction and use of "Modèle:Japonais2" template, to match "Template:Nihongo2" of en:WP. I use the latter a lot, and rarely use "Template:Nihongo" more than once in any article. -- Hoary (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Aw, but I like treats.

OK then, Shadow and Pink. Have some fungi. (And then try this collection.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Especially those little chocolates with the soft chocolate stuff inside 'em If it helps, think of it as a textual New York accent: "Are you t'reatenin me?'". I sometimes type too fast for myself to follow, and you can't 'fix' edit summaries. HalfShadow 03:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

can youtake it?

like Pinkville (talk) 03:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Pinkville (talk) 03:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! (Karl Lärka)

Hi! I saw you did a great job with editing my crappy english in Karl Lärka and wanted to thank you. I added some more, you´re very velcome to correct it. I erased the link-template, I don´t think the article will get any more links and a templet that never will be removed seems not very good. If its necessery, just put it back.

I removed some of the vague-templates and tried to explain some of them. I would be happy if you checked the ones I explained and corrected the text.

Also, there are some words in swedish I cant´find any english word for, as for example "fäbod" (the little "village" of buildings used for people and cattles in transhumance) and "skioptikon". I also having trouble with the term "peasant culture". I used the term "peasant culture" but some seems to suggest "rural culture" or "culture of the country side". The swedish word is a term used for the culture before the Industrial Revolution. Which of the terms is correct?--Godfellow (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think "skioptikon" should stay as it is. As for a group of "buildings used for people and cattles in transhumance", I'm sure I've read of such things before, but before my second coffee of the day I am completely helpless. Indeed, this may take days to come to me, if it ever does. I'm about to ask Hegvald, who may have some idea. -- Hoary (talk) 23:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Skansen uses "Summer Pasture Farm" as a translation of fäbod (Swedish version of the same page). I don't know if that is an ad-hoc translation or more established usage. It may possibly be good enough for an article where it just occurs in passing. --Hegvald (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your good work, Hegvald. "Summer pasture farm" will do for now, at least. -- Hoary (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll look a bit more at this when I get the time, but I am no good with the technical aspects of photography and can't improve that. Just a question: you put a "[vague]" tag at the end of (what is currently) footnote 14. Shouldn't it be at the actual sentence? The citation itself seems clear enough, as far as I can tell without checking the source. --Hegvald (talk) 08:38, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Good question. Now I have no idea of what I could have been thinking. I've therefore deleted the "vague" flag. -- Hoary (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Brazil

Hi Hoary, could you please protect the article against IP edits, because all of the recent edits are reversion of IP vandalism. Regards. --Luizdl (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for alerting me. Yes, a look at the edit history made it clear that the article had been besieged by unregistered editors with a mental age of eight or so. Semi-protected for two weeks. -- Hoary (talk) 05:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

What should I do concerning this?

[4] Ninguém (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I did it for you. Another option (and perhaps a better one) would have been to delete it. As it's your talk page, you are of course still welcome to delete it together with my own response. -- Hoary (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoary.Ninguém (talk) 10:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've found that when one responds to offensive comments politely, the writer either (a) gets even more upset but in so doing makes a complete fool of himself, or (b) cools down and becomes more polite. Of course I hope for (b) but I admit that (a) can be fun from time to time. -- Hoary (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Brazilian people

Hello, Hoary. I'd like to know if you could be kind and help me outo with a little problem. The article Brazilian people has a section that is written according to one source only. I added some time a go a "one source" tag (the one that says "This section relies largely or entirely upon a single source. Please help improve this article by introducing appropriate citations of additional sources".

Well, the problem is that there is a user called Hentzer who insist on removing it. Well, after reverting his edtis asking to stop it I requested in his talk page to not do that again. After all, such tag does not hurt the article and anyone interested can improve the text. Well, he "answered" my request on my talk page writing:

"Em vez de você colocar aquele aviso sem graça, que acaba depreciando a página brazilian people, que creio eu que você também faz parte desta categoria, pelo menos está na sua página inicial de seu usuário que você faz parte. Então BUSQUE LOGO as fontes que tu achas que falta lá, porque ninguém vai fazer isso por vossa alteza, e delete de vez aquele aviso de carência, que é um escândalo logo na principal página do Brasil, pois não existe país sem um povo!"

Translation: "Instead of putting that unfunny warning [he is talking about the tag], that ends depreciating the brazilian people page, that I believe who you also are part of that category [that is, being Brazilian, which I am], at least it is in your initial page othat you are part of it. Then SEARCH NOW for the sources that you that you think are missing in there, because nobody will do that to you highness and erase once and for all that warning, that is a scandal just at the begining of the main page of Brazil, as there is no country without a people!"

Well, seeing from his page I can see that he is quite an enthusiast of Brazilian matters but could you ask him to stop removing the tag for no reason and to stop being rude? Thank you very much, --Lecen (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. He seems very excited. I hope he calms down quickly. If not, perhaps a short break from Wikipedia would be beneficial. -- Hoary (talk) 16:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

He has been doing similar things in Immigration to Brazil, which is annoying, because when I go to the article to see what things need to be rewritten or sourced, the fact tags I placed there are gone. Ninguém (talk) 17:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

He must be new around. I don't think there is any need to be tough on him right now. All he needs is someone to explain him to calm down a little bit. But thank you for your help. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Photography of Denmark

Thanks, Hoary, for having a go at this. I'm glad that someone interested in photography has finally made a contribution. Your warnings on a couple of the sources are particularly welcome. I'll try to find some more reliable references. I was however a bit surprised by a couple of your language edits: date from rather than date back to; took off rather than took on. As a Brit, these sound very strange to me. For example, while planes take off, trends take on - at least on this side of the pond!

As for the nationality of Jacob Riis, I can only say that he is something of a hero in Denmark. The foreign ministry has arranged many exhibitions of his work at embassies throughout the world. If you wish, we could refer to him as "Danish-American".

Anyway, please keep in touch. I would particularly appreciate any additional content you may be able to offer. Ipigott (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that we have rather different idiolects. I defer to yours.

On Riis, I've continued the conversation where it started.

While I was busily attending to some of the finer points in your article, I forgot to express my appreciation of its general contours and very existence. Basically it seems a good article and I wish there were a lot more like it. However, partly because I'm a bottom-up rather than top-down editor and partly because I find nitty-gritty is a lot freer than abstractions are from the risk of time-wasting arguments, I prefer to concentrate on individual photographers. Moreover, there was once an article on "Photography in Britain" (or similar) that was surprisingly well informed, balanced and written, but that unsurprisingly called out for help here and there in formatting and so forth: having put an hour or more of my life into doing this, I realized that the whole thing was plagiarized and had to delete it. What with the dearth hereabouts of people wanting to write about photographers who don't happen to be themselves, their employers, or trendy; I came to the misanthropic conclusion that any article that shows a grasp of, um, the sweep of photographic history is likely to be ripped off from somewhere. All in all before attempting to create an honest article on "Photography in Britain" I'd want to write articles on such worthwhile people as Homer Sykes, Daniel Meadows and Peter Marlow; and working at my normal snail's speed (see this) I might have accomplished 5% of the necessary biographical work before dying of old age or anyway fading with Alzheimer's.

But I'll see what can be done with the Danish article. Alas I'm crippled by my inability to read any Danish: inexcusably, I can't even read German, which I imagine would be a big help in guessing at meanings although of much less in starting to grasp them. -- Hoary (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hoary, I would really like to thank you for all the time and trouble you've put into this article both late at night and early in the morning! You can rest assured that this article is not plagiarized. While I am interested in photography, I have no professional involvement. My motivation is simply that I believe Danish culture, whether art, architecture, music or photography, deserves proper treatment in Wikipedia. Unfortunately the Danish Wikipedia, always poorly referenced if at all, is weak on these topics. Most of the research is therefore my own. You've been doing an excellent job of picking out the weaker sources and as a result of your guidance, I will try to dig deeper and find references that are recognisably independent. One of my mistakes to date might well be that I have tried to find English-language references where possible so that readers can check them out themselves. But unfortunately, as you have noticed, English-language material in this area is not always easy to find - if it exists at all. It is for this reason that so many references are from Danish sources.

There are also several other problems: it has been very difficult to find vintage photographs and I have spent quite some time looking for archives and related sources from where I can upload them into Commons. This is fine for older works but I am having great difficulty in finding more recent photographs relating to contemporary photographers which are free of copyright restrictions. I don't know whether you have any suggestions here? I was wondering, for example, if it is possible to include the covers of books or posters for exhibitions. I'm not sure how the copyright works on these. The alternative, of course, is to point to external sites through references or through museum listings, etc. I always have the feeling, though, that people rarely delve into such things.

Finally there is the general problem of how far to go. As you will have seen, at this stage there are very few biographies of Danish photographers which means that if there are important names, they need to be included. The best basis for who to include seems to be a combination of awards, exhibitions, published books and reviews. But it is sometimes difficult to sort out the sheep from the goats. Maybe you could suggest a few names for follow-up - if you have come across any contemporary Danish photographers over there in Japan? Ultimately, the good ones all deserve biographies of their own and I hope to be able to cover some of them in due course. The assistance of other contributors here would of course be much appreciated.

So for the time being, I'll try to follow up on the numerous comments you have added to your recent edits. Together we might be able to make quite a good job of the whole thing! I'll be making comments on Riis on the Photography in Denmark talk page. Ipigott (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think that this article was plagiarized. It never crossed my mind, what with all the sourcing. (We can and perhaps will disagree over the details of the sourcing, but basically it's there.)

The Danish WP sounds like the Japanese one. When it exists at all, material there about photographers or photographs is dreary, unsourced, or both. Other areas of Japanese WP are similar. I'm always amazed when people talk of translating from Japanese WP: there's so seldom anything worthwhile. (Of course I don't deny that there are worthwhile articles and conscientious writers there.)

You're certainly right about Danish culture. I know just enough to know that there is an enormous amount (e.g. of paintings) that I don't know and that's worthwhile.

Perhaps in part because I've never been to Scandinavia, I always mix up the nations and peoples. I mean, of course I know which nation is which, but when I hear of somebody who is, say, Norwegian, pretty soon I forget where she came from and perhaps also fondly believe she's from any one of the three nations. I did think of one or two more Danes, but luckily before opening my mouth I checked and I found that no they weren't.

The Faeroes and Greenland are both Danish; Ragnar Axelsson is Icelandic, but he has memorably portrayed both. This of course raises the question of what "photography in Denmark" means: Riis aside, arguably the photography thousands of kilometres away by the Dane Sobol does belong and arguably the photography of the Faeroes and Greenland by the Icelandic Ragnar does not, but neither choice is obvious to me.

An image of a book cover (or poster) in which a photograph is prominent is just as much copyright as the photograph would be. Quite how it's copyright is a complex matter, but simply it is not copyleft and in principle is unusable. In principle English-language Wikipedia (but I think no other, unless perhaps Hebrew-language) does allow "fair use", but it's important to realize that "fair use" means "as is understood to be 'fair' by informed understanding of relevant law", and not as would be so understood by you or me. Putting posters aside, you are able to insert the image of a book in an article on that book. (Example: Tulsa.) I think it's also generally understood that it's OK to insert the image of a book near a passage that discusses the book within an article on a larger subject. That would justify the image of the book Diane Arbus within Diane Arbus -- and, I hope, the image of Ragnar's book within his article.

The best thing to do is to get a photographer to explicitly copyleft small reproductions of a few works. (I give further advice on this here, but I'm no expert.) Of course you have to explain copyleft, etc -- not the easiest way to hold the attention of a photographer who may be busy or old. But if you do manage to pull this off, then the images may go to Wikimedia Commons and thereafter appear in Danish and other Wikipedias. -- Hoary (talk) 09:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply you thought it was plagiarized. I just wanted to explain my motivation. I had a quick look at your Icelandic Ragnar but I don't think he would really fit into the Danish article.

Thanks too for the info on book covers, etc. As for contacting Danish photographers personally, I think that would have to be a very last resort. In this connection, I've noticed that very few of the articles on photographers or on photography by country contain images. This seems very surprising to me. After all, one would expect a few photos when dealing with photography! It may be a case of the shoemaker's children being badly shod - or however that goes. By contrast, if you look at articles on art or architecture, they're full of pictures - so many in some case that galleries have to be included too. Just look at my Architecture of Denmark article.

I think I now need to spend a bit more time on filling in some gaps in the article, especially including a few more recent or contemporary photographers. It might also be useful to add something about fashion and advertising photography. Perhaps also about the move towards digital photography. I hope you find time to keep watching developments. And if you think the article is a candidate for DYK, please feel free to submit it. Ipigott (talk) 14:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help with DYK. I've never submitted anything to it. Once, a month or so ago, the thought occurred to me that I might do so. I tried reading up on the regulations and procedure, but lacked the stamina to get through the bits I needed (let alone the rest). My eyes glazed over; I dozed off.

Virtually all fashion and advertising photography (and sleb portraiture) leaves me blank, I'm sorry to say.

I wonder what impact digital photography has had on work good enough to be worth discussion. I understand where it might differ, but when I look at the output of people whose careers have straddled analogue and digital, there rarely seems to be an obvious discontinuity. -- Hoary (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Share your feelings about DYK. I have never successfully submitted anything myself. I can't cope with the templates. That's why I always try to get someone else to do the dirty work! But I do think DYK helps to get an article off the ground. Each time one of mine has been selected, I get half a dozen new editors on the job, not to mention the talk page.

You'll be glad to hear I couldn't find anything worthwhile for fashion and advertising.

There have been one or two Danes who have specifically gone for the digital stuff. But many others seem to have gone backwards, using black and white or old printing mechanisms.

And by the way, you've been really quick on the draw on Mads Alstrup. I expect you'll be on to Georg Emil Hansen soon. Ipigott (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And Chile...

Yes, this is an actual trend... assuming good faith, we would have to assume a huge epidemics of ADHD too.

But the real problem here is not the misunderstanding of what sources say, but of how they should work. Trying to remove wild guesses from embassies from these articles will cause storms of shouts and yells and screams: "but it is official!" "are you saying that the Embassy is lying?", etc. The truth however is that those claims are completely unverifiable, beyond the elementary fact that we can verify whether the Embassy stated it or not. The accuracy of the calculation, or even whether there was a calculation, is impossible to ascertain, but we are stuck to the commonsensical notion that "embassies are reliable" - no, governments never, ever, lie. And so we have articles like Arab Brazilian, claiming utterly unrealistic figures, that cannot be challenged except by transforming the whole thing in a candidate for Uncyclopaedia or perhaps The Onion... (but is this the method?) Ninguém (talk) 10:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Friendly notice

Hi, this is a friendly notice from me that a discussion is taking place here in which you might be interested. Groupthink (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Adam Ferguson (photographer)

hi Hoary how's it going? I'd be interested on your advice about notability in an AFD for Adam Ferguson (photographer). There is an interesting discussion I am involved in about whether a photographer can be notable without being creative as outlined in WP:CREATIVE. I don't know if I am completely convinced by my own arguments and I would love your opinion on it. It also came up as an issue in the recent afd for Emma Summerton where the result was keep. Thanks! Jenafalt (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed Summerton. What I read doesn't impress me, but maybe that's in part because her kind of stuff (as far as I can infer it from the article) doesn't interest me. Hmm, if I'd noticed that AfD perhaps we could have had a jolly fight over it! Ferguson is fine. WP:CREATIVE is a crock. ¶ Psst, look what I did today [looks into mirror and adjusts halo]. -- Hoary (talk) 14:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

whoa impressive! Is there much on photography in the japanese wikipedia? Who are your favourite Japanese photographers? Jenafalt (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Your first question is easy to answer. No. Favorites . . . it's hard to give a blanket recommendation for almost anyone, as virtually all put out dull books and exhibitions together with the good ones, as the former are what pay the bills. But still: Fukuda, Fukuhara, Jūmonji, Kimura, Kikai, Kondō, Kurata, Kuribayashi, Nagano, Shiotani, Takanashi, Tōmatsu, Toriyama, Ueda, Watanabe. That's a very varied selection, though not so in at least two ways: (i) they're all men (which I regret) and (ii) they're all even older than I am (which I again regret). It's easy to pay a lot of money for their books; don't dream of buying any Japanese photobook outside Japan till you've at least looked for it at this honest website. ¶ (Uh, irrelevant to any of the above, but can I ask you too to keep an eye on this article? I think the talk page will make the problem clear.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the champers! I must say the only one of the Japanese photographers that I really know is Tomatsu as I did my major year 12 assessment piece on 'Hiroshima–Nagasaki Document 1961'. I shall look up the others. We saw a great documentary on Albert Kahn (banker) recently which had all of the amazing colour photographs he had shot in the 1920s. Amazing pics. Jenafalt (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd never even heard of Kahn. In its depth and breadth, my ignorance never ceases to surprise and depress me. For that matter, what's a "major year 12 assessment piece"? (It sounds like something out of secondary school but surely with subject matter like that it can't be. And how could you have got your paws on a copy of Hiroshima–Nagasaki Document 1961?) ¶ On the purchase of scarce books by little-known Japanese photographers, consider this: A scarce book by an important, but little known Japanese photographer. He's "little known"? Yeah, right, he's so little known that his work is illustrated and described in every account of the history of Japanese photography that I can think of. That book "scarce"? Howls of derisive laughter! Try looking for the man's name within Yahoo Auction at any time you please. -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippines–Romania relations has been nominated for deletion again here

You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Writers Notes

I've been fact-checking, and will do some further editing to it and the the Awards article. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Black Brazilian vs African Brazilian

Black Brazilian has been nominated for deletion. While I am pretty aware of its many lackings, at least it isn't the collection of personal theories intended to prove the unimportance of Portuguese colonisation that is African Brazilian. Perhaps you would like to comment?

Thanks in advance! Ninguém (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Now this was what I would call a conclusive debate: [5]. Two people vote for merging, with the slimmiest arguments ever; not one of the arguments against merging was even addressed. But there is a "result"? Frankly... Ninguém (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Pedro II of Brazil

Hello! Hoary, could you help me out, once again? There is an article about Emperor Pedro II of Brazil that I've been working for quite some time and now I had a minor problem with a new editor. I don't know if you do know, but royals do not have surnames. And Pedro II is no exception as you can see in the article about his early years (with four different sources). This new editor, called Fernandoe added to the emperor's name the name of the his parents's royal houses: Braganza and Habsburg as you can see here. I reverted it once. He insisted in it and reverted my revert. His motive was simply the fact that "Dom peter II have last names. He is son of Maria Leopoldina de Habsburgo-Lorena and Dom Pedro I de Bragança e Bourbon." Well, that's not a good motive. So I reverted once more what he did. This second time, however, I went to his talk page and explained why I did it. He didn't care and reverted it my edit once more, and for a third time he added the wrong information. He even answered me on my talk page. Well, not only the info he added is wrong but as I explained to him, in article Early life of Pedro II of Brazil (which was part of Pedro II article but I removed and created it as its own article) four different sources gives his name. Taking a look at editor Fernando writing style, it can be noticed that he doesn't write very well in English and is quite probably just a novice trying to be helpful but that has not much insight about the subject. I want to avoid a greater issue in here so I was wondering if you could talk to him and see if he could be reasonable? Thnak you very much! Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Bitchy

What an incredibly bitchy comment. I was planning to dramatically expand the article but I am currently very busy in real life for personal reasons which I do not wish to reveal on Wikipedia. I may be better placed to get involved in the rather petty Kingston University dispute at a later date.  Francium12  12:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, was one of my comments bitchy? If so, this one, or this one, or something else? -- Hoary (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Sources, sources

I see you are still arduously ploughing through all the references in Photography in Denmark and correcting them one by one. A mammoth task. I have always tried to follow the general guidelines in Wikipedia:References but perhaps there is something I have missed. If you could summarize my systematic errors, perhaps I could avoid them in the future. Ipigott (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if the task is mammoth, but it's certainly boring! But it would be as boring for you as it is for me, so I'm not complaining. (What makes it more tiresome is that a lot of the host websites are terribly slow, and often don't work at all on particular days.)

I don't suppose I've ever read WP:References, but now that I do skim- read it I see this example:

Plunkett, John. [http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html "Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying"], ''The Guardian'', London, October 27, 2005.

What, no access date? But let's put aside the matter of access date for now.

I'd instead present that as

John Plunkett, "[http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying]", ''The Guardian,'' 27 October 2005.

But I think that you might do so as laconically as:

[http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1601858,00.html Sorrell accuses Murdoch of panic buying. From The Guardian.]

(Note "might", not "would".)

Anyway, I'm trying to add the name(s) of the author(s) (where inferrable), to use quotation marks to set off as a title what might otherwise be taken as a mere description, and so forth.

One problem that I have is my total ignorance of Danish, which may lead to my identifying as authors people who aren't authors at all. (And misinformation is worse than lack of information, so I might be damaging the article. I certainly hope I'm not doing this.)

Don't let my perceived grumpiness worry you: your article (yes, let's cut the bull) is already good, and it's getting better. -- Hoary (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for these explanations and tips. I'll try to comply as far as possible. I don't know why you talk of grumpiness. I certainly have found your responses positive and constructive. I have very much appreciated all the work you have put into the article and your quick responses to queries. Don't worry too much about the Danish. If you really make a mistake (and I haven't seen any up to now), I will of course correct it. I'm surprised you have difficulty in accessing some of the sites. They all work fine for me whether I am in Luxembourg or in Denmark. It might have something to do with the nodes you have to go through from Japan.

One more question while I'm here. As you have probably noticed, I have written quite a few additional articles about Danish photographers, etc. I have added the WikiProject HOP tag to most of them. Is there any way other HOP members can be alerted to their existence so that they can participate in improvements? And vice versa, is there any way I can see what other members have been doing? Ipigott (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've had slow connections (or non-connections) to various sites in the last few days, but I got the impression that the Danish sites were worse than average. Yes, it's probably a matter of my connection to them rather than anything intrinsic to them. Anyway, it's a reason why, as I've plodded through the notes, I've skipped one or two. ¶ "HOP" only has this. Unfortunately people seldom seem to pay it much attention. "HOP" is pretty much moribund. It started off as an effort among three people, none of whom ever seemed to feel any compulsion to document photography in general. (For example, while I realize that fashion photography has brought us the occasional gem, has had historical significance, and pays the bills for many photographers who do interesting work elsewhere, I'm chronically uninterested in even immaculately documented claims that this or that photographer has photographed this or that brand.) But I certainly don't want to announce that I think it's dead, because I always hope that it will attract new people (such as yourself, of course). ¶ For your sterling historical efforts so far, here's a present-day camera for you. -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

The Great Template Showdown

Hi Hoary. Since you're an admin who has expressed interest in this debate, maybe you can help sort out a puzzle. I see that Template:Shinji Imaoka and Template:Hisayasu Satō both have deletion notices on them, but I cannot find their discussions... Oh dear, does this mean I'll have to write an article on the sequel to Horse and Woman and Dog?... Dekkappai (talk) 22:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean. I've asked. -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Should have asked him in the first place... don't want to have to go through Satō's oeuvre any more than the Wiki-cops insist I absolutely have to... Dekkappai (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings again... and thanks!

Greetings Hoary - thanks for keeping an eye on my userpage and removing unhelpful edits.--Technopat (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Sirkka-Liisa Konttinen

Are you sure she is British? After all, I left the UK in 1967 and I am still British (officially at any rate). See also a communication from the Finnish Embassy in London here. Interesting you should choose someone who has been documenting the area where I grew up: Newcastle (not Byker but nearby Heaton ) where I was born and Harlepool where I lived for most of my childhood. Reminds me of the time when I was Japan in 1969. My Japanese colleague and I spent a weekend up at Nikko. We climbed to the top of one of the peaks on a misty morning and, would you believe it, from the other side up came a couple who turned out to be close neighbours in Newcastle! Small world. Ipigott (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I regret to say that I don't know Newcastle at all; I saw samples of SLK's work in some anthology two years or so ago, chased up more of it, ordered a couple of books by her (incidentally Amber Online sells them new for a lot less than many dealers charge for used copies), and vaguely intended to write an article on her but was finally prompted to do so by coming across the article on her in the Guardian's "best shot" series. ¶ I've never met her or heard her speak, but she does seem to have been accepted as "one of us" in Byker over twenty years ago, and I think that since then she's spent a lot more time in Britain than Finland. I know nothing of her nationality and also rather wonder about what makes you think I think she's British. Is it perhaps the list of categories? ("... British photographers | Finnish photographers | Finnish expatriates in the United Kingdom | People from Newcastle upon Tyne | United Kingdom photographer stubs | Finnish people stubs ...") There's a general understanding in WP that these don't have to be exclusive; the fact that (say) Nabokov was an American writer doesn't mean he can't be a Russian writer. The inclusiveness is often taken to rather bizarre lengths (this chap manages to be "from" three different states), but I think it would be odd to deny either that SLK is Finnish or that she's British. -- Hoary (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It was the "Finnish-born" in the lead that struck me most. It makes it look as if she is no longer Finnish. Why not just say Finnish? As for Amber, I must say I was impressed to see that they not only publish the photographs on the web but also the full texts of the books. I must say I found SLK's work very good, rather nostalgic too for me, and look forward to see the article developing further. Ipigott (talk) 09:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think that the wording implied that she was no longer Finnish, but anyway I've changed it following your suggestion.

Yes, I hope that the article can be developed a lot further. But I'm so terribly slow.

Even a well-developed article will be an extremely poor substitute for one of her books. Support a photographer (and her publisher): buy her books! More worthwhile than beer, fags, or the rental fee of the last DVD that I was stupid enough to select the other day.

Any comments on this? -- Hoary (talk) 09:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Jackie seems to be a Russian administrator working in the area of IT. He has apparently been translating Wikipedia articles into Russian. I see that he's been doing a lot of category stuff recently. As for cat 20th century photographers, I think it's stupid. But what might be useful is cat 19th century photographers, especially in the context of history of photography??? I can't see that Jackie has any real interest in photography. Ipigott (talk) 16:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Psych. project

I believe you had an interest in VermeerenFainites ^barleyscribs 22:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by interest. I'm disinterested and uninterested, but the degree of spamming on his behalf does have a horrifying fascination. Thanks for the reversion and the tip-off! -- Hoary (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hasebe

Hi, Hoary. Since you expressed interest in Hasebe, you might find this interesting: http://cinebeats.blogsome.com/2009/06/21/remembering-yasuharu-hasebe-1932-2009/ (Meiko Kaji is involved) . Dekkappai (talk) 22:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll pass on the last of these, but I want to see all of the rest. Thanks for the tip! -- Hoary (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Brazil, again...

Hello... as you may have noticed, we are up to new conflicts in the Brazilian demography articles, particularly Race in Brazil and Afro-Brazilian. Perhaps you could comment?

Thanks in advance! Ninguém (talk) 00:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

What about this? [6] Ninguém (talk) 02:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoary. I have nothing against fact tags, but really... placing them to question whether 10,000,000 divided by 100,000 is actually 100 seem a little bit... a little bit... a little bit "a little bit". Ninguém (talk) 12:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

And not only placing fact tags on the result of mathematic operations, but reinstating them when they are removed... [7] Ninguém (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

A little bit _____? Well, yes, various adjectives about mental states do pop into my own head, but I shall (of course!) "assume good faith" and remain civil -- both of which I recommend to you as well. Just as I recommend them both to anybody. Anywhere. All the time. -- Hoary (talk) 03:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, thank you again, and certainly not just "a little bit". Or do I need not a source for that? Ninguém (talk) 03:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Now we have this kind of problem: [8]. If the information is "sourced", can it be repeated ad nauseam? Can it be placed in a way that breaks the logic development of the subject? Can you explain us that, please?

Thanks in advance (I do have the feeling that I am going to write this phrase a lot of times the next days; may I?)

Category:20th century photographers

I've been taking a closer look at this. As far as I can see, category:19th century photographers was intended as a subcategorisation of category:pioneers of photography. Admittedly, it would have been more sensible to call it "19th century pioneering photographers" but now it's probably too late. I'm more worried about category:20th century photographers as all kinds of non-pioneering photographers are beginning to fill the list! Perhaps it would be a good idea to delete the category after reclassifying some of the present 41 to category:pioneers of photography - if they really deserve it. What do you think? Ipigott (talk) 16:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never liked "pioneers of photography". I respect anybody's right to edit a book so titled, and I might even buy it, but it's just not a suitable title for an encyclopedia. Consider for a moment the much more trivial matter of pioneers among Japanese cameras. An organization in Japan created a hardback book and website on the matter, with hundreds of cameras: "first camera to have film wound by a lever" (as opposed to a mere knob), "first camera to have its electronics powered by solar cell", etc etc. The result is either fascinating, boring, or laughable, depending on your tastes -- but it's hard to say that any of the items isn't a pioneer. It's going to be the same with photographers: first to photograph the X war (where X equals anything), first to do so in color, first to have his or her photographs thereof trigger this or that event. If all of this sounds at least moderately dramatic, consider the pioneers among photographers of the infraordinary. Really, it's nightmarish. ¶ I have mixed feelings about categorization. Given the tiniest encouragement, some people would, I'd guess, make WP reflect the US obsessions with "gender", "ethnic affiliation", etc: "Black hispanic bisexual Connecticut photographers", etc; I'd be far more interested in "Photographers of jazz", etc. ¶ I'm happy to have "American photographers" (say) split into "__th/st-century American photographers", etc, but (i) I have no desire to do any of the needed work myself, (ii) it would be absurd to have (say) "__th/st-century Honduran photographers", and (iii) somebody might object if some nations' photographers were split up by century and other nations' neither were nor had it planned. -- Hoary (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi; could you give your opinion here? Thanks! --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

My complaints

Hi Hoary,

Your answer was actually exactly what I would have recommended to the OP: Buy a new, huge hard disk, and use something like Ghost, or, I suppose, Clonezilla, to copy the C: drive data to it, and then the software tweaks the partition table to embiggen the partition, and then use the new drive as the C: drive. So, on to my complaints about your answer. (A) "Or you can pay money for a shrinkwrapped box containing some alternative to Clonezilla that has no advantage over it, and use this instead of Clonezilla." I found it weird that in a Refdesk answer to a general question, you found the need to plant a flag claiming Clonezilla is strictly superior to all other, similar products. Ghost does have several features Clonezilla doesn't; and in any case, the OP doesn't really care. Why not just tell the OP to use Clonezilla or similar software, some of which is listed at our List of disk cloning software article? (B) I think it is pretty well established that "Use Linux" or "Use a Mac" or "Use Windows" answers are, at best, quite unhelpful to the querents; and, at worst, troll and flame bait. The poor OP just wanted to know about moving some files around on his drives, and you suggest switching operating systems? I didn't like that at all.

Thanks - Comet Tuttle (talk) 17:56, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(a continuation from this)

Hang on. First, I hardly claimed that "Clonezilla is strictly superior to all other, similar products"; rather, I implied that it might be at least as good as an alternative in a shrinkwrapped box. Which I think is true. Secondly, among other options, I mentioned the possibility of an alternative to Windows; I didn't push this at all. Aren't you reading too much into the dislikable parts of my response? (Though of course you are fully within your rights to dislike it, and to express the dislike.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Jan Grarup

Hello Hoary. I have finally found a Dane who can match up to your friend Zoriah Miller's infamy! If you don't know him already, have a look at the article. And also the Foto8 write-up about him here. Thanks also for continuing your boring work on the references in Photography in Denmark. Sorry about mixing up da and dk. The problem is that when everything appears perfect in the updated version, there's no obvious reason to check every letter out - unless you somehow know there is a problem (as you seem to). Ipigott (talk) 12:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice "dk" myself till yesterday; I don't blame you for not doing so.

Grarup does indeed look interesting. I'll investigate. (What puzzles me is the excitement over Sobol's Japan book. I saw it some time ago; it looked humdrum. I read more praise of it, thought that I might have misjudged it, looked at it again, came to the same conclusion. I mentioned it to a friend who's a big fan of Moriyama; he agreed with me. Maybe we're both missing something.)

I've just today heard of this for the first time. There's some really good work here. I'd just like to think that there were news magazines bringing it to the attention of people who don't already happen to be interested in photography. -- Hoary (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Some very good stuff on Anthropographia. Could be a candidate for a WP article. But I don't really agree we don't get enough press coverage of the human rights issues. I subscribe to Time and it always seems full of the stuff, ditto BBC news. Take a look, for example, at this. The problem to me seems to be that the richer countries are all spending too much on the organized conflicts in which they are involved - so however loud people shout, there's simply nothing left for the really deserving causes. As for I, Tokyo, I agree that many of the pictures seem to be a repeat of Sabine with a Japanese girl substituting for a Greenlandic one. But some of the outdoor stuff is not too bad. I suppose you are referring to reviews like this. Sometimes I wonder how much reviewers are being paid (and by whom) to write positive reviews. There are certainly similarities with Morijama, especially the black and white contrast and the suggestive pictures of semi-naked or naked individuals. Ipigott (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I should look again at Time: I don't recall opening a copy for at least a year, long after I'd concluded that it had diluted its previous identity (already hardly a thrilling one for me) with that of advice for the affluent middle-aged on how to spend yet more money on housing, cosmetics, oddly passive vacations, consumer durables, etc. You make BBC News sound good too. I haven't seen Sobol's Greenland work; I'll take a look. -- Hoary (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Am I reading something into nothing?

I wonder what your take on this is. User_talk:Tony1#Achtung.21

Danish photography books

Just in case you do not see this on the Photography in Denmark talk page, here are some suggestions.

The only good book I could find on the subject is Dansk Fotografihistorie, but of course it is in Danish, as would be most of the other books you would find in a Danish bookshop. If you really want to research the subject in detail, why not use your local library. Japan has ILL (Inter-Library Loan) agreements with the rest of the world.

There is also the excellent site you had difficulties in accessing and asked me to delete as a reference. It's here. If you still have difficulties, please let me know and I'll send you the text. -- Ipigott (talk) 12:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd love to research the subject in detail; I just don't have the time. My point, poorly expressed, was that I have background knowledge of the history of photography in, say, Japan and Britain. (NB I don't claim to be a historian of or particularly knowledgable about either; merely to be significantly knowledgable about both.) If this were instead a history of the photography of either nation, I'd immediately think of people who aren't mentioned in, say, the Oxford Companion to the Photograph (as well as forget about people who are there) and check the article against my ideas. For Denmark, I can't do this kind of thing. So if the question is of whether the article is sufficiently comprehensive, I can't help.

Really, I'm less familiar with the process of becoming a GA than with that of becoming a FA. The latter is something I tend to view with horror or amusement. Anyway, it seems that consistency and rulekeeping are highly valued where they are of least importance, and that certain kinds of authoritarian personalities just hang around and make life miserable for others. To minimize the risk that they'll get carried away, I recommend doing everything to perfection first.

I remember complaining that I couldn't access a certain site. The complaint wasn't directed at the site, at you, or at the citation of pages on the site. I don't remember asking for a reference to be deleted, but if I did then it wasn't because I distrusted that site, which does indeed look good. -- Hoary (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

For once, I'm a bit confused by your comments. It's not too clear whether you would prefer to go straight for FA rather than risk a fail on GA. I don't know when you last looked at the criteria for GA, but I seem to find them much less scary than you do. If you go down them one by one, I don't really think there's a danger of a fail but I would expect some feedback on improvements required for example on the prose, the images, and the level of detail (too much, too little?). I'm not too clear either whether you think it is necessary to go through all the references again for total consistency. As you have already spent a lot of time yourself on this, I would guess that they are now all in pretty good shape. In any case, I am now spending more and more time on Music of Denmark and related topics where a great deal of work is required.

So please let me know if you think I should go ahead and submit it for GA assessment or if you would be happier to drop it. I am not too bothered either way. It's just that when you put an article up for GA, it attracts a lot more attention and interest. What's more, WikiPortal Denmark is sadly lacking in well-rated articles, especially GAs, and I have been trying to improve the siituation. Ipigott (talk) 10:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Briefly, you certainly shouldn't drop it, but you also shouldn't submit it quite yet. Just hang on a couple of weeks. -- Hoary (talk) 12:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. As the French say, "Il est urgent d'attendre." If you think there is anything I should do with the article, just let me know. -- Ipigott (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

List of photographers

I have just been looking at List_of_photographers which appears at the bottom of Template:Photography. As far as I can see, this list needs to be updated whenever a new photographer article appears in WP. Which means I really need to go back to all my Danish photographers and make sure they are on the list. I must say I was surprised to see there was no slot for press photographers, the nearest general heading being documentary. Does anyone maintain this list properly, e.g. on the basis of evolving categories, or is it a free for all? -- Ipigott (talk) 11:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

It's a free for all, really.

The list is next to worthless for almost any purpose that I can think of. However, it seems harmless and it's obviously on the watchlist of several people, who obviously use it, as I do, to alert them to the arrival of what's presumably a small percentage of the new articles.

Yes, "documentary" is problematic, because the meaning can be anywhere from (A) the ingredients of what many people would call a document to (Z) any photography that's neither abstract nor completely staged. "Press photographer" would be a great improvement. -- Hoary (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate your interaction with WikiProject Visual Arts on Photography in Denmark. Good to attract wider attention. Thanks also for explaining my involvement although without your own work and your useful suggestions, the article would not be nearly as good as it is. Now I am continuing to work on Music of Denmark where I am trying to apply some of the lessons I have learnt from you. Have a quick look if you want - and let me know where to concentrate future effort. -- Ipigott (talk) 12:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Demi's Birthday Suit

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Demi's Birthday Suit/GA2. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 01:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Couple favors

Hi Hoary, your bosom companion here. Have a couple favors to ask. First, your opinion on an article title over which Oda Mari and I have a question: Inflatable Sex Doll of the Wastelands. The Japanese word for this common household appliance is "ダッチワイフ", and I've seen some (probably most, actually) English titles use the term "Dutch Wife". However, I'm not aware that this is an English term. Could it possibly be a British-ism? The title I used for the article comes from the first large English-language book on pink cinema (Thomas & Yuko Mihara Weisser's Japanese Cinema Encyclopedia: The Sex Films), and, personally, I like it better. But if it actually is used in English, that might sway me over to the "Dutch" camp... Second, would it be within your authority as Admin to create/delete/& "salt" the page: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dekkappai? Consider it a "statement" I can't make, not having the "salt" tools in my arsenal, just primitive old sarcasm coupled with dodgy morphology. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

On favor one: I note our article Dutch wife redirects to Sex doll, and a description of the "Dutch" usage only in Japan, sourced, naturally, to a deleted Mainichi article. Urban Dictionary defines the term without reference to Japan, but I find Urban Dictionary to be spectacularly crappy as a source, and note that the more rational definitions seem to be cribbed from our own. So that won't sway me. On favor two: take a look at the glory that is Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MichaelQSchmidt and you'll see why my interest in having no interest in Adminship has been rekindled. Dekkappai (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "Dutch wife" is a well-established term in British English. In my faraway yoof it was the standard term, at least among the majority who regarded Dutch wives and their users as a joke: I've no idea of what they were called by their users. I can easily believe that the term has fallen out of use even in Britain. I assume that the term derives from the ridicule with which the English long regarded the Dutch (cf "Dutch courage" and the rest). Dutch wife does not redirect to Sex doll, but anyway what the latter says about the term "Dutch wife" looks highly implausible to me. Time, energy and memory permitting, I'll look up "Dutch wife" in the OED.

I looked at that AfD RfA just now but became drowsy before I could work out what all the fuss was about. I did notice that the candidate used "opine" rather a lot. It's a word that makes me giggle, for some reason. Apropos of which, see the latest addition to this (and one of these days I really must add to it some of the gems from the lower half of this).

AfDs RfAs shouldn't be difficult. Figure out what the likely questions are and think of answers for them. Be brief: the less you say, the less chance there is that you'll put your foot in your mouth. Announce at the start that, time willing, you'll answer all questions directly asked of you but will ignore any comment. Then watch the fun and participate only when you have to. My own was simple but I don't suppose that if it were now I'd be bothered to answer all the questions I'd be asked. As I look at some recent questions, I do tend to think that my answer would be "I don't know, and this doesn't worry me in the slightest"; I suppose I'd be rejected for lack of due solemnity. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Hoary-- so it's obsolete British English? That tips the scales a little more in favor of the "Dutch Wife" title-variants. Now I'll edit-war with a little less hostility when someone moves the article (just joking-- any of the titles would be fine with me.) We colonials do have vestiges of some ancient contempt for the Dutch in our bastardized lingo as well... Dutch treat, Dutch oven, Dutch uncle come to mind... The AfD candidate is a perfectly fine, calm, helpful, enthusiastic chap who would make an excellent Admin, but happens to be a little too "inclusionist", and so after a 100% approval rate for a day or so, got ambushed... I figure there are some advantages to having no ambition towards Adminship too-- for example I can tell Scott MacDonald to kiss my ass in so many words, and just get away with a day or two Wiki-holiday, and not have to worry about explaining it later before the Grand Inquisitor ;-) Dekkappai (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Ebonics link. Is it supposed to be satire? If so, well done. (I'm reminded of a talk I had with a young Korean gentleman recently. The conversation drifted to language, and he mentioned that he'd heard Korean was related to Finnish. Highly probable, he thought. And I had to bring up the many similarities I find between the Korean and Japanese languages and cultures (beyond the obvious borrowings from Chinese). The reaction was predictable: "COINCIDENCE!" ;) A glance at your RfA-- with no reflection on you, of course-- lends me to suspect that these things have changed drastically over the past four years, and not at all for the better... As to what their owners called them (Dutch Wives)... perhaps Gladys? Muriel? Dierdre?... Dekkappai (talk) 16:01, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

My RfA? Who's arbitrating who now? Oh, that. And then I see that I was writing about "AfD" when I meant RfA. I know I've been busy and short of sleep recently, but this is absurd. I'm just going to have to wake myself up by deleting a few articles [emoticon]. ¶ Anyone who rushes to put down the obvious similarities between Korean and Japanese cultures to coincidence is deluding himself. With the languages, though, it's very problematic. I'm no historical linguist but my impression was that it's pretty much agreed these days that there's insufficient evidence to propose a protolanguage for both Korean and Japanese. Personally I find this disappointing because it's fun to see nihonjinron nutballs going apoplectic at the notion that the language is not "unique" but is just a derivative of proto-Altaic that happens to have flourished. ¶ I think that the gent who's so offended by my utterances at Talk:Ebonics is the person he claims he is, and have to assume that he means what he says. ¶ Sorry, "my" library is closed for a few days while its OPAC is being revamped (I think and hope), so I don't have access to the OED. -- Hoary (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

...Too bad. If I'd known a couple hours earlier I could have checked OED myself. I'll do so in a couple days if you don't though... I'm no linguist, of course, but my gut-feeling is there's got to have been a K-J connection back there somewhere, and not just borrowings from each other. As an English-speaker with a smattering of a non-academic background in Japanese (picked it up from the neighbors growing up), when I was plopped down in the midst of a Korean setting, I was able to pick that language up without much effort at all. The sentence-structure is amazingly similar, and my ear even hears a connection between the native numbers-- which the experts say are so different-- if you figure in at least a couple thousand years of separate evolution. "hana, deul set" "hito- futa- mitts-"... These days my trouble is when I try to speak Japanese, I keep putting in Korean words (the problem used to be vice-versa). Anyway... I'll get to the OED on "Dutch Wife" in a couple days if you don't beat me to it. Dekkappai (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Korean and Japanese do indeed seem related. Though it is of course utterly irrelevant to the question of where they came from, one great (if peripheral) contrast between them is in their writing systems. The Japanese one is, by a great margin, the silliest I've ever heard of; the Korean one is, as far as I understand it, superb. And a peripheral similarity: the inability to agree on (or for Japanese, even to devise) a single good romanization system. (For Japanese, there are variants on two contrastive systems, one sensible but clearly inadequate [it can't handle フィ ヴォ トゥ etc], the other comprehensive but [with "matcha" etc] grotesque.) -- Hoary (talk) 01:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Korean writing system was similar to the Japanese before the full implementation of hangeul-- mix of native alphabet with Chinese characters. (Take a look at the top line of the Korean film poster File:Madame Aema.jpg from as recent as 1982.) Though, yes, Japanese have the Koreans beat for the silliness of multiple-readings of the hanja/kanji-- in Korean it's usually just one reading... Yes, hangeul is a marvelous writing system. Give it a look sometime-- you can learn it in a day. Not only scientific, the letters are supposedly modeled on the shape of the mouth when making the sounds... As far as inability to be Romanized adequately, I think Korean has Japanese beat by a long-shot. Korean has the more complex sound-system, and, for some reason, the sounds just never fit well in the A-B-Cs. Sticking to any one system always winds up with some uncomfortable constructions. I always wind up just writing it by ear... For another similarity closer to my lecherous little heart, take a look at Kim Ki-young's The Housemaid (HERE you can watch it free online.) Though on a higher artistic plane, I swear, spiced up just a very little it would have fit in perfectly-- thematically and stylistically-- with the early Japanese "pink" cinema I've seen... yet it was made in 1960-- two years before the first pink film was made in Japan. Dekkappai (talk) 03:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Korean sound system is far more complex (and there's the enormous matter of assimilation). Clearly one letter per phoneme won't be adequate. Well then, digraphs, e.g. the "eo" in "Seoul". The romanization systems aren't bad; I wish they'd settle on whichever of them is the best. Hangeul is indeed amazingly easy to learn: I picked it up in less than a day a long time ago and have never quite forgotten it. There's nothing so wrong about sticking Chinese characters within it for names and the like, and indeed this was normal when I was in Korea. (People only used characters for themselves, and Seoul was freakish among placenames for not being written in characters.) Compare Japanese, where both とめる and やめる are commonly and quite unnecessarily written 止める: daft. But Japanese doesn't even need a syllabary: if it were only very slightly adapted, hangeul would suit it just fine. -- Hoary (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the near-total abandoning of Chinese characters, but last I was there-- 5 years ago-- I think the cities were still written in Chinese characters, not sure... Have the Japanese adopt hangeul? Now there's an idea! Think they'll go for it? And you're right-- when I've looked through my wife's Korean-Japanese dictionary, I've noticed how well it works. Dekkappai (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Hoary. Here's what I get from the OED on "Dutch Wife":

1. 1891 FARMER Slang II. 349 *Dutch-wife, a bolster.
2. 1965 W. YOUNG Eros Denied xxvii. 271 We call..a masturbation machine a Dutch husband or wife.
3. 1966 G. BLACK You want to die, Johnny? vi. 114 ‘What's this great long bolster for?..’ ‘Colonial invention. For the hated Imperialists. Known as a Dutch wife.’
4. 1967 Guardian 19 May 9/6 He will liberate man from dependence on the opposite sex by constructing what seems to be known in Japan as a ‘Dutch Wife’; a kind of life-size mechanical doll with built-in electric heating and all the other refinements.

I wonder if the Guardian quote is a review of Imamura's The Pornographers (1966). Isn't that the one that ends with the lead character building himself the "perfect woman" then sailing off to sea with her? Anyway, the English cite (1965) beats the Japan-related one only by two years... Dekkappai (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Kevin Michael Reed

I see you deleted the entry for Kevin Michael Reed. Why did you do that? I work for Kevin and I'd like to get this cleared up and the page returned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.91.122.137 (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

As explained by both the "delete" comments within AfD/Kevin Michael Reed. It was a copy of this page of Reed's site. At the foot of that page, we're told "© Kevin Michael Reed. All Rights Reserved." Reservation of all rights is as strong a contradiction as there is to what's required for use here: explicit release by any one of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License, the GFDL, or of course renunciation of any copyright claim.

Additionally, please read "WP:COI". -- Hoary (talk) 23:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Berenice Abbott

Dear Hoary, I added an external link to the Berenice Abbott page to The Joy of Giving Something Permanent Collection. You deleted the edit, perhaps rightfully so. I am just curious as to why? It's not clear to me. Thank you for your response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastsidetruman (talk • contribs) 16:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. It seemed to me that the link didn't comply with what "WP:EL" says. I'm sorry I can't elaborate now (because I'm falling asleep), but if you'd like to ask about WP:EL then try me and I'll answer a few hours from now. -- Hoary (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Hoary, Again, thank you for taking the time to respond...however, the site to which I am linking is a not-for-profit photography organization. Very legt. Not advertising anything. Isn't your dispute really a matter of opinion? And on whose authority do you delete?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eastsidetruman (talk • contribs) 04:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not questioned the legitimacy of the site to which you have been linking. I've drawn your attention to WP:EL, which makes no distinction between for-profit and non-profit sites/organizations. I delete on the authority of WP:EL, or rather of my interpretation of it. If you think I misinterpret it, please explain. -- Hoary (talk) 06:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Barn

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Such thorough work, as shown here. Ty 04:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Tyrenius. It was indeed rather laborious. Unfortunately the whole affair leaves an unpleasant flavor in my mouth. It all seems unfortunate, and I suspect that an article about Zheng meeting the guidelines might have been possible. -- Hoary (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Alt text

Have you been following the alternative text for images discussions? I began to look into it all after someone started editing alt messages into one of my articles. Apparently there is some discussion about making them obligatory and some editors are apparently insisting on them for GA articles. I'm a bit worried about it all for two reasons: 1) the messages themselves are not always drafted correctly and do not convey a proper impression of the image; 2) the guidelines do not seem to be very clear to me. Another problem is that it does not seem to be easy to use them in galleries without introducing special templates. There is also the fact that is many cases the caption under the image offers sufficient information anyway. In connection with Photography in Denmark, I was wondering if we should make a start on this before someone else comes along with alt text messages that need reviewing. Or should we just forget about it for now? -- Ipigott (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

As you've seen, I've muddied the waters there. Briefly, while I applaud the intentions, I think that in many cases they degrade the page. -- Hoary (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2010 (UTC)