Jump to content

User talk:Dr Steven Plunkett/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 This is an archive of past discussions with User:Dr Steven Plunkett. Do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion with this User or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
User:Dr Steven Plunkett  -    Current Talk Page  .oOo.         Archive 1    Archive 2 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  ... (up to 100)


Good job

The Original Barnstar
Seriously great work on the East Anglian Anglo Saxon articles, completely improved all of my contributions - I hate you!Edchilvers 11:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I feel very honoured by your remark, thankyou. Please don't hate me too much as I'm planning to keep going down to Edmund. This make take a little time. (!)Dr Steven Plunkett 12:14, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just fine. From the back of your book I'm told you set up the Anglo-Saxon gallery at Ipswich Museum, which definitively places the site of Felix's bishopric of Dommoc at Walton on the Naze and yet the museum at Dunwich definitively places the site of the bishopric there! I suppose there must be much debate over this issue amongst Anglo Saxon historians?--Edchilvers 12:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to echo the Hurrah! sentiment. East Anglia is a land of mystery to me; Anglo-Saxon East Anglia even more so. I really ought to read your book! I've had a look at our articles on East Anglian rulers today, and except for the ones you've revised, which are excellent, they are rather in need of tender loving care. I've moved some around to match the names in Lapidge's (Keynes's?) list at the back of the Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England. Still a few to do. My to-do list originally included your excellent piece on the utterly obscure Beorna of East Anglia. According to Kirby and Yorke, he's Beonna, but taking the more extensive material in the article which reconstructs him as B*-dynasty Mercian, Beor-something seems altogether more likely. So probably I'll leave well alone! Regarding Ahlbert, presumed Æthelberht (I), and Hun, are they likely to be the subject of articles? I did think of expanding Æthelberht (II), but instead I'll stick to Mercia and points north! Again, thanks for the great work. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your note. The first time I'd seen the Beorn* B-dynasty identification for Beonna was in your article, so I'm sorry to say that I can't help with a citation for that. Fascinating all the same. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied re. the kings of the East Angles on my talk page. Keeps everything in one place! Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dommoc

Ed - There is much debate about Dommoc, also called a civitas by Bede, which implies that it may have been a Roman place. What the gallery actually says about Dommoc is on the panel to the right of the door as you enter, and is decidedly in favour of Dunwich, perhaps too much so. It does not mention Walton on the Naze.

'Dunwich, 631 AD Felix, a holy man from Burgundy, was sent to King Sigebert to help convert the East Angles and to found a school. He became their first bishop, based at Dommoc, which grew into a great city before being swept into the sea.'

'Felixstowe, c 630 AD The ruins of an imposing Roman shore fort stood at Bull's Cliff. St Felix of Dunwich may have established a religious house here in the early 630s.'

Everyone accepted Dunwich for centuries but there are difficulties. Looks as if a wiki article on Dommoc is called for... Dr Steven Plunkett 13:18, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dommoc article now extant.Dr Steven Plunkett 04:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hi Steven. Welcome to Wikipedia. I've replied to you at User talk:Walgamanus, but thought I'd drop by here just to make sure you were watching the page. Walgamanus 20:19, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M. R. James

I thought that might be the case about the title--I've put single quotes within the double quotes, which will indicate that quotation marks are part of the title. Good additions, by the way. Nareek 02:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to John Stevens Henslow

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Dr Steven Plunkett! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 19:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hamlet Watling

Hi Steven - There's no obvious reason for this still to be tagged for cleanup except that it's usual to format your sources as a bulleted list under a '== References ==' heading. A couple of other notes: Woodbridge and Cavendish need to be disambiguated using a piped link, and it's not recommended to link isolated years (see the Manual of Style WP:DATE). To change the article's title, just click the Move tab and follow the instructions. Colonies Chris 11:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And another couple of little things - the '1908 deaths' category has the name as Hamlet Watling rather than Watling, Hamlet (like the births category); and the Manual of Style recommends italicising names of books and periodicals (such as the East Anglian Daily Times). Colonies Chris 14:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Can you get a good colour image of the outside of the museum as it is today for the page? Also can you get a better picture (close up) of the Great Auk egg for the "Great Auk" page. I hope to visit the museum sometime. Snowman 16:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
I saw your work on Ecgric of East Anglia on Recent Changes and was very impressed. Good work! ♠PMC♠ 17:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penda

The ref on the Penda page is wrong: checking Kirby it's p. 95. He seems to be reading Bede's "desecto capite perfido" very literally. Kirby says "There must be at least a possibility that Penda's decapitation by Oswiu was an avenging of Penda's earlier dismemberment of Oswald's body.95" 95 references Wallace-Hadrill's commentary on Bede, pp. 122–123. Hope this helps. I believe I have seen other references to Penda's decapitation, so if you'd like me to check further, let me know! Angus McLellan (Talk) 08:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Anglian Aethelreds: I'm sure you're right. The only way to do it is to number the 9th century post-Edmund chap as II and Aethelberht's father as I. Probably we'll come up with a better way of naming things than "X (number) of East Anglia", but not yet alas! Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a stab at it on the Æthelred (I) page by adding a line break and "subject to Offa of Mercia" in the succession box thing. As far as the template I did goes, I'll just put a * or something and a note "* subject to the Kings of Mercia" or "** subject to the Kings of Wessex". So far as I recall, for most other subject kings we've usually just mentioned it in the text, but there's no harm in making it obvious! Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

East Anglian Maritime History and Archaeology

Hello, and welcome. I've just noticed your contributions. My personal project within wikipedia is anything related to maritime archaeology, but as I live in Essex, I have a personal interest to find out more about the maritime related trade and economy of East Anglia through the ages. Of course prior to the building of railways, virtually all trade was carried by sea anyway, so I'm pretty well interested in all trade for earlier periods! I know virtually nothing of Anglo-Saxon times and would be grateful if you could point me at good references. Thanks a bundle. Viv Hamilton 17:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. My interest is about who builds the ships and who operates them, between which ports and with which cargos. But you need to understand the economics because you get boom and bust in various industries, so one trade will stop and other will flourish. The towns on rivers and seaports flourish or decline with the trade. The interest in the trade on the East Coast started because I was looking at the remains of a vessel and we didnt have any dating evidence but it probably carried coal - my first assumnption was that therefore it must be industrial revolution, but it turns out that they were transporting coal much much earlier. By the industrial revolution coal was a commodity and transported in the equivalent of transit vans, but in Elizabethan and earlier times, it was a luxury and transported in higher status ships. The more you look at it, the more you realise that it was all a lot more sophisticated than we tend to assume. Viv Hamilton 17:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Æthelstan Half-King

Hello Steven! I hope you're well. I don't know whether Æthelstan Half-King was someone you planned to cover: semi-king of East Anglia I suppose. I've bodged up an article because we didn't have anything, but I doubt if it is terribly great. Please do take an axe to it if you have the time and the inclination. Best regards, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sutton Hoo and Vendel

Hi Dr Steven Plunkett. I am afraid I don't have any useful English language references to add, beside some articles in Swedish encyclopedias and such sources. The helmet I added is from a find called SHM 9785:XII. I am not sure of the date because the sources I have just date them to the Vendel era (c. 550-c. 800). BTW, I have a pic of a Swedish Vendel era lyre quite similar to the one found at Sutton Hoo, but I haven't added it as I don't know whether it is more similar to the Sutton Hoo lyre than other north and west European lyres of the time.--Berig 16:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. This Polish source dates the new helmet (excavation SHM 9785:XII) to the period 550-600, which makes it close enough to Sutton Hoo.--Berig 16:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PPS. I have added the English-language publications mentioned on the Polish site. They may be useful for people who want to know more.--Berig 16:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I have no intention of expanding that part of the article, as adding more info would be entering the realm of speculation, which there is enough of already on WP.--Berig 17:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS, there is one very simple possible connection between the king who is buried in Sutton Hoo and Sweden. Germanic princely families had a tradition of sending the boys to be raised by their maternal grand-parents. It was part of the peace-weaving between royal clans. So the king who is buried there could very well have returned to East Anglia to become king after his father, in the same ship he was buried in, and with newly made and costly armour of Vendel manufacture. It would original research to write like this in the article, but mentioning the tradition of sending sons to the families of their mothers, could be a nice way of balancing Newton's theory of Wulfing origins.--Berig 19:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will look around and see if I can find a good reference. I have read somewhere else that there is a theory that the Wulfings were Anglo-Saxon and the argument for this is that the only counterpart of Wealtheow that can be found in Norse sagas is the Northumbrian princess Ogd. I don't give much credit to this because the source is the Hrolf Kraki saga which IMHO is the least trustworthy source of them all. It was the very last saga on the Scylding dynasty to be written down and the most elaborated and altered version. When the Wulfings (Ylfings) are mentioned in the Norse sagas, they are invariably rulers of the petty kingdom of Östergötland. Best,--Berig 07:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great quote! I think the reference you found is as good as anything I can find. The tradition of sending children to be raised by parents-in-law is doubtlessly part of the more general tradition of sending sons to be raised by friends. I imagine that the armour and the ship were precious farewell gifts given to Raedwald(?) by loving fosterparents (king Eysteinn and his queen?) seeing him depart to become king of his own realm, and that the boat burials in East Anglia testify to the strong family and friendship bonds that remained.--Berig 15:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:Kjárr

Since you look like a slightly more level-headed editor than berig is right now, I'd like to have your opinion regarding his allegations of stalking on User:Dusis' part. A quick glance at talk:Scandinavia makes it clear these two have clashed recently, but I doubt stalking is actually involved. Kjárr being on the talk page, it'd be surprising that editors interested with nordic culture wouldn't look at it. What do you think? I haven't looked too much into the dispute itself, though.Circeus 21:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Kirby

Another portait at ZALF (DEI) I put the link on the page. Best wishes from rainy but warm Ireland Robert Notafly

Hello Dr Plunkett

Fantastic work! I've really become intrigued by Anglo-Saxon history over the past number of years - mainly, it has to be said, thanks to Time Team! Do you have any publications of your own you'd recomend? Cheers, Fergananim 12:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sutton Hoo peer review

In case you did not see. [1]. It's archived/closed now, but some outside comments. -- Stbalbach 17:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for the update, I did wonder what happened since you were so active. I'm very sorry to hear of your loss and troubles. Wikipedia can be a stressful place so take it in small doses, if at all. I think your article is much better than most and featured articles get more exposure and readership, for example mention on the Wikipedia home page for a day, inclusion in the Wikipedia CD-ROM and other future projects (maybe a print version) - it deserves wider attention -- of course more people will find and read it via Google than anywhere else, which is already the case. Anyway, take care of yourself. -- Stbalbach 04:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just came across your note to Stephen. Please accept my belated condolences for your loss, and my best wishes for a speedy recovery. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norse history and culture wikiproject

Wikipedia:WikiProject Vikings and Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Scandinavia both appear to be defunct at this point. I would like to set up a new Wikiproject to oversee articles on ancient and medieval Scandinavian and Nordic history that would cover what these inactive projects used to. There are literally hundreds of great articles on obscure sagas, historical figures and the like (largely through the efforts of such users as User:Berig and User:Wiglaf). Since you have edited many Norse-themed articles in the past, I would be interested in your thoughts on how best to proceed. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scots, Attacotti and Deisi

Hi Steven. If I have not said so before, I am truely sorry to hear about your recent berevement. I would like your opinion on the above short addition I made to Prehistoric settlement of Great Britain and Ireland. Cheers. Fergananim 14:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Norse history and culture

I know you said your contributions were of limited relevance but East Anglia was a Norse kingdom for some time. If you have any interest check out the project page and, if it appeals to you, sign up. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Braham

Thanks for your comments. I am abroad at present so will look at them in more detail when I am back on Thursday. If you are interested, I have just had published a long article on Braham in Jewish Historical Review (Transactions of the Jewish Historical Society of England) (April 2007) with much further information. Braham desparately needs a proper modern biography. Best regards, Smerus 17:26, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eardwulf of Northumbria

I've been updating Eardwulf of Northumbria. As usual, I find that the numismatic evidence and its significance escapes a mere dilletante like me. Barbara Yorke's Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England (p. 97) says "after a gap in the minting [of sceattas] in the rigns of Eardwulf and Ælfwold..." styccas appear. However, the Fitzwilliam's corpus seems to have plenty of Eardwulf coins. Am I missing something here? Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well that was a comprehensive answer! Thank you very much for the useful pointers. I'll get beavering away. The Breedon thing was new to me. Fascinating stuff! Thanks again, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a passing reference to Breedon in the Eardwulf article. Thanks very much! Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethelbald

Dr. Plunkett, Angus McLellan suggested I drop you a note to ask if you'd mind taking a look at Ethelbald of Mercia, and perhaps suggesting ways I could improve it. I'd appreciate any comments or ideas for additional material I could add. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 01:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! That's incredibly helpful; I really appreciate it. I'm a novice, so if you don't mind I may ping you for clarifications from time to time, but I will work at what you've given me and see how far I get. I'm travelling for the next two weeks and will have little access to reference materials, so you may not hear from me a while. Thanks again for a tremendous amount of input. Mike Christie (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sutton Hoo

Thanks for your kind words re my great-uncle and the photos of the '39 dig. I myself hadn't looked at the article for a few months and was pleasantly surprised to see that someone had taken what had been a rather mediocre and uninformative article and made it into something of such high calibre. Clearly, you are the one responsible for this, and it is because of the vast improvement to the page that I felt it was time to donate something of use and interest to it, a special gift. Cheers, Jeremy Gilbert, aka Canada Jack 22:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ethelbald again

You gave me some very helpful advice on Ethelbald of Mercia recently, which I've tried to follow. I am stuck on a couple of the things you suggested, though, and wondered if you could give me a source or two I could look at. The two points are:

  • You mentioned a "Biddle discussion of Repton sculpture and mausoleum"; I don't know what this refers to -- can you enlighten me?
  • Your thoughts on the likely friendly relationship between East Anglia and Mercia would be very good to include, but I'd need to source them. Do you have a published article or book that I could cite for these points?

Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the references -- I'll dig them out. Mike Christie (talk) 11:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dig novel

I have only skimmed the article, but I don't think you should worry. There are many articles that summarize and discuss novels on Wikipedia. The only thing that might happen is that someone will add [citation needed] tags so that you will have to find the exact page with the info appears in your sources.--Berig 09:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New History Website

Hi take a look at this website.

http:// www englandandenglishhistory com/england_english_englishness/default.aspx The English


It has some new images of Anglo-Saxon battles etc done by an aritist on some of the history articles. Populist - but may excite interest in Old English History. What do you think?

Thankyou for pointing this out, anonymous correspondent. The site needs quite a lot of factual tidying but looks attractively presented, and the pictures are suitably Middle-earthian (love the trees at brunanburgh!, though the helmets are a bit archaic, even allowing for Coppergate): its point of view is one with which any English Briton can feel some sympathy, and might well stimulate a bit of interest in the history. The trouble is, the ideological aspects of the site (the 'Englishness' bits) aren't very persuasive. I think that there IS an English identity (NOT defined by race), it is a very important facet of the British national identity, and it persists despite attempts to dismantle it. I don't think this site really expresses it though. I have only just had a bit of a look at it: it is on a theme that is not unfamiliar, the need for the English British to know their origins in order to know their destiny. (Hurrah!... ?) Me, I rather prefer Ralph Waldo Emerson's book 'English Traits', which goes right back to Stonehenge as a fundamental of the English psyche (as in any Jungian view it would really have to be), but is far more discursive in its handling of what an English person is or might be, and being by an American, can recognise the faults as well. I don't think the 'English virtues ' listed among the website's nine are consistently or exclusively English, nor necessarily all very virtuous unless interpreted by the finer leavening of our Christian interpretations of them. Take for example no 3 and 4, 'Honour' and '(effectively) Loyalty' - they do not belong ONLY to the English, and (conversely) some, nay many, have considered us perfidious, hierarchy-ridden imperialist, exploitative, and pathological. I am much moved, when I read (in George Seaver's book, 109) that, as Miss Royden graciously tried to express in French to Albert Schweitzer (during his English visit in 1928), the 'honour' her family felt in receiving him as a guest, the good Doctor Schweitzer was gravely shocked, and privately and kindly remarked that she should never use such a word, 'parce que ce n'est pas convenable parmi les chrétiens'- it is not appropriate among christians. He perhaps meant by this, The kindly service of humans towards one another is a duty and reward of christian humility, and that one should not be in awe of names or titles. He could see the spirituous fuel of Teutonic paganism rolled up in the word and concept of 'Honour', always ready to harden the arteries of christian concourse. It might be worth noting that 'Loyalty and Honour' was also the motto of the Waffen SS, and therefore this 'Panegyrique' of supposed English values is the kind of material attractive to the jingoistic wierdos who think they are the reconstituted Knights of this or that, usually with an agenda of racial or social intolerance, or thinking themselves Illuminati. It is not that moderation, tolerance and decent behaviour are the gift of the English to the rest of the world, but that, as in every society and civilization, the English are at their best when choosing to be, or being in the habit of being, moderate, tolerant and decent. Unfortunately there are also extreme manifestations which are much less palatable - like the kind of Socialism represented by the successful Labour party candidate for Smethwick in 1926. I do not accuse the website maker of that, but warn them that there are those who exploit national feeling for purposes of Nationalism, which are in my opinion (or, I would like to hope are) decidedly 'Un-English'. The site is designed to tend to a moral conclusion, but should refine more carefully what that conclusion is, in my opinion. Then I'll know whether I agree with it. Need I go on? Dr Steven Plunkett 13:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Steven, I have your talk page on my watchlist because of our recent conversations, so I noticed this -- just wanted to let you know that the editor who posted the question is a sockpuppet of Troll666, and has been posting this link to numerous articles and talk pages, presumably because it has a merchandise section. Hence the contributions have all been removed as spam. With luck, your note above will be appreciated, but I wanted you to know before you put any more effort into a response. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From the Troll.

Quote Steven:

It is not that moderation, tolerance and decent behaviour are the gift of the English to the rest of the world, but that, as in every society and civilization, the English are at their best when choosing to be, or being in the habit of being, moderate, tolerant and decent

I completely agree with you here. Can I use it? I did not design the site or give any contribution although I know who did. Clearly it has comercial content and intent - hence Mike Christies understandable irritation. I have tried to create a debate, however, so thank you for responding.

I am very well aware of how knowledgeable you and Mike are so forgive the innocence here as I talk.

The objective of the site was to:

DEFINE the English and Englishness for English people in a pupularist way - but that if people wanted to read more they can. It is to try and 'get interest' going in this period. Even if for a while there are inaccuracies. It actually is supposed to not have a POV - which is the main problem with Wikipedia in some instances.

The 9 virtues are there to try and show that the English do have a definable value system. Connection with any right wing would be refuted strongly. The artist is a left winger!! Another contributor is a lawyer. Thye artist is currently working on a picture of Athelstan at Brunanburgh. The current picture of Brunanburgh is actually a depiction of Saxons in 7th Century rig. It will be moved later.

The 'right click' option on the pictures has been removed - but if you and Mike are OK in moderate dialogue I will e mail one or two to you. The originals are quite detailed. And I hope accurate.

DYK nomination

Hi, I've nominated an article you worked on, The Dig (novel), for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the hook for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on May 22 where you can improve it if you see fit. MeegsC | Talk 23:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Dig (novel)

I really think that you need to look at a couple of things:

You do not own this article (see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles) - and neither do I - no one "owns" or controls it.
When you started the article you saw the following: "If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it" - the article & talk page are open to continual editing & evaluation, and no one controls it. Like it or not, once it's posted, it's more-or-less free game (vandals & unreferenced edits not included, of course).

I have added a request for someone from that project (I'm not a member of the project) to take a look at it and the talk page (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Assessment for request). SkierRMH 19:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was thinking of something similar. That the page be left there as a "stub" with just the basic information left there. The title to transfer the bulk of the existing article would be problematic, perhaps something like "Fictional elements of 'The Dig'" or something to that extent. - and you could link the new page to the existing one with a "See also" section on the existing one.
The problem with the article as it stands is that the sources are not referenced into the article itself (such as footnoting, etc.), which some purists could consider a violation of WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Simply providing a list of sources is ofttimes suspect, as it doesn't lead to a transparent way to verification Wikipedia:Verifiability. Before creating a new article, I'd suggest embedding the references in one of the ways suggested at 'citing sources', or it could easily end up for a proposed deletion as original research. SkierRMH 21:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per a request made by SkierRMH on the talk page of the Novels WikiProject, I thought I would place a comment. The purpose of the project is to bring all articles about novels (and related works such as short stories, novellas, etc.) under one umbrella to ensure they all meet a consistent standard of content and information. It's not a case of ownership over the article, but rather making sure that the books are all properly categorized, and contain information that is standard. For example, if you check other articles under the Wikiproject, there should be an information box included at some point that includes an image of the first edition, and basic information such as publisher and ISBN number so that interested parties may obtain a copy of the book for themselves. The rating of articles is pretty much an arbitrary thing, designed to encourage editors (note the plural) to revise the article as needs be. If the book isn't actually a novel, but is rather a non-fictional work (as opposed to historical fiction), then the article actually should be retitled -- however it would then be subject to becoming part of the Books Wikiproject, which covers works other than those covered by the Novels Wikiproject. And there are other Wikiprojects that may also take the article under their wings depending upon the subject matter of the book. If you haven't already, please visit Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels for more detailed information of what the Wikiproject is about -- and as always, please feel free to contribute! 23skidoo 19:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally Wikipedia articles should not reflect any point of view or what have you of any individual editor, so the article shouldn't make anyone feel exposed unless it's a biographical article, in which case there are policies and guidelines to protect people which in some rare cases have seen articles removed. The way to look at The Dig article is that, if the book has been published in any venue beyond vanity press, then someone at some point would probably have created an article on it, and possibly someone with less knowledge of the subject matter. If the book is controversial (and in order to maintain fairness I have intentionally avoided reading the article in detail) then this is legitimate information to include, however sources and citations have to be included to support arguments supporting or opposing this. (And Wikipedia is far from perfect in this regard). Right now, however, Wikipedia is really the only game in town for people wanting to put articles online about various topics. There is a new competitor to Wikipdeia called Citizendium which is trying to take a more academic approach, but if anything it's even more strict when it comes to citing sources, and those who register apparently have to provide credentials (which may or may not be too invasive for some people). Anyway, back to the article at hand, I agree it's hard to put a genie back in the bottle on Wikipedia; if you have concern over the content there are avenues available such as Wikipedia:Peer review where disinterested third parties can be brought in to evaluate an article. Similarly the Novels Wikiproject forum is another place where one can seek advice (albeit more in terms of format than actual content). I hope this helps. 23skidoo 16:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the past two days I have added a good deal of in-line references to the main section of this text to show how this author's statements about the historical dig do differ from records in the existing literature. If any editor reading the article feels that other points need citations but cannot supply them, if they will indicate in the usual way I will attempt to supply them for this text if no one else wants to, or else to remove offending statements for which no supporting citation can be found. I am very grateful to all editors who have helped me to make the material I have already contributed to this article more suitable for Wikipedia content, many thanks to all. Dr Steven Plunkett 23:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Updated DYK query On 27 May, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Dig (novel), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Aquarius • talk 15:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sims Reeves

Hi Stephen, I think singers were often known to claim they were younger than they really were for reasons of vanity. Perhaps there could be other reasons such as a parent wanting people to think a child was unusually talented for their age or a youth wanting to gain access to education or employment which would normally be restricted to people above a certain age. I think most of the main sources give the date as 1818, I presume, because convincing evidence for the date was given in a biography? The mormon index lists a John Reeves baptised in 1818 son of John and Rosina in the Woolwich church (which was used by members of the Royal Artillery). Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 19:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate your comments on the talk page here if you wouldn't mind- Talk:Folk Music of England- some cleverclogs decided that English music should be redirected to Folk Music of England and has now created an absolute mess where you have to apply to get the whole thing moved back. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 23:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be me :) .. Steven, thanks ... I have commented your message to me. Angelstorm 20:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the list of existing relevant articles which I have drawn up on the talk page. Cheers Gustav von Humpelschmumpel 22:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music of the UK

You may be interested in (and I hope may wish to participate in) Wikipedia:WikiProject Music of the United Kingdom - do please take a look. --Smerus 07:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam RV

I reverted some spam on your user page. This anonymous user User_talk:74.233.157.254 added some fake discussion about citizendium.org to your page (as he also did on mine) See [2] and [3]. I added the template:spam to the talk page of the IP and referenced to the same to edits as I did here. In order to be able to revert the spam, did I have to modify the link to the banned site englandandenglishhistory dot com. Just FYI. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 06:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left you a comment to your question at my talk page User_talk:Cumbrowski#Spam_reversion. Happy archiving :) --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 08:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classical music of the United Kingdom

I was heartened to see your great work on improving the Classical music of the United Kingdom article. I did a lot of the original version and have always felt it needed a great deal more expert input from others: very little of substance had been done to improve it between about November 2005 and your current work. I'll follow the progress with interest. Bluewave 15:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Coates (tenor)

Hi. Thanks for your message. I don't have strong feelings about this. I was going through Category:tenors this morning (for a particular project) and found many irregular designations. (tenor) is normal but there are exceptions and in any case there are also redirects. (Usually the more redirects the better.) Of course parentheses are only necessary when the name is not unique, but I'm sure you know this. Anyway if you want to revert this one that's fine by me. All the best. -- Kleinzach 15:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. You are working in an important area where other people are not contributing at the moment. Good luck! -- Kleinzach 23:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Music of British Isles

Your analysis is a fair one. I am quite happy to change the project to 'British Isles' and we can nominate it to change without any problems. If you are agreeable I will upt up the proposal on the project page first. --Smerus 21:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ballad Opera

I've put a comment in the discussion page of this article you may be interested in - you seem to have a very different basic definition for "ballad opera" than the one proposed by the current article. I certainly would NOT consider all eighteenth century English opera - with or without spoken dialogue - under this heading.

Soundofmusicals 13:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response to my talk page - glad we've got that one cleared up! That link is not a bad one on the whole - but the "early" part of it is very vague and ambiguous - and does seem to indicate that "ballad opera" is just another word for "light opera in English", which of course it isn't. I would go so far as to say that it isn't a simple set/subset relationship either. Ballad operas were not really "operas" at all - any more than (say) a "rock opera" or even a "soap opera" is an "opera". I am strongly tempted to wipe the link, although as I didn't add it in the first place... what do you think?

Personally, I think that the net is usually a BAD source for research for a wiki article - better to read what Scholes and Groves have to say about a musical subject, for instance, at least as a basis for the factual content of your article. Some websites do have entirely accurate information - but on the whole they are less reliable than reputable printed reference sources. (Of course I am a librarian, and biased).

Mind you an awful lot of rubbish gets printed too!

Soundofmusicals 11:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talking of sources I really ought to add a few good references to that article! Wiki sucks you in, doesn't it? In this case it built from a couple of casual additions to a stub - I never sat down to write an article at all.

Some of my many and extremely varied interests (like WWI aeroplanes!!!) are sadly "owned" by pathologically "reverters" who have read very little but believe everything they have read (in this case apparently old issues of "Boys Own" Magazines) and are impervious to rational discussion! I hate acrimony and have to give up and leave them with it. Music is of course a much safer field for this sort of thing, but it does make you wonder about wiki at times.

Sadly - a great deal of interesting information falls into the "reputable sources differ" basket (sometimes internally, as you point out). This kind of controversial "fact" is probably best ignored altogether in an encyclopedia.

Soundofmusicals 18:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dr_Steven_Plunkett/Archive_1&oldid=1066804608"